skills cultivated on high school and college debate teams ... In one high-profile matter, Prince as- sisted in ... tion
Supplement to the Los Angeles and San Francisco
APRIL 12, 2017
TOP 40 UNDER 40 California’s leading lawyers of 2017
Daniel Prince Paul Hastings LLP Los Angeles Practice: Litigation Age: 38
O
ver the course of 14 years with Paul Hastings LLP, partner Daniel Prince has developed a knack for navigating his clients through thorny government and corporate investigations. Prince credits skills cultivated on high school and college debate teams for his courtroom victories. “One of the things I specialize in is scoping an investigation and thinking strategically about the information we have out there,” Prince said. “I learned to look at things from all different angles.” In one high-profile matter, Prince assisted in the defense of Patrick Harran, a UCLA biochemistry professor charged with multiple felonies in the aftermath of a lab accident that resulted in the death of a research associate. People of the State of California v. Regents of UCLA, et al., BA392069 (L.A. Super. Ct., filed Dec. 27, 2011). Prince successfully filed a petition for a writ of mandate with the California Court of Appeal, arguing Harran couldn’t be found guilty because as a supervisor
he did not share the same responsibilities as an employer. Harran received a highly unusual deferred prosecution agreement, which allowed him to perform community service without entering a guilty plea. Prince won another deferred prosecution agreement for client H.P. Automotive & Tow Inc., which was charged with bribery after an officer was secretly recorded by an FBI informant discussing campaign contributions. At the conclusion of the case, Prince’s client was able to continue working at his company. US v. Singh, et
al., 2:16-CR-105-PSG (C.D. Cal., filed Oct. 5, 2015). Prince also recently assisted the South Korean-based Kolon Industries Inc. in a trade secrets case brought against the company by E.I. Du Pont De Nemours and Co., which claimed Kolon was stealing information on high-strength fiber used in body armor and tire cords. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours and Co. v. Kolon Industries Inc., et al., 3:09-CV-00058 (E.D. Va., filed Feb. 3, 2009). The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed an adverse jury verdict for Kolon in the civil case. But Prince tested a novel legal theory to deal with the criminal indictments, which successfully challenged whether his client could be served under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, given that Kolon is a foreign company without a principal base of business in the U.S. According to Prince, trade secret cases involving overseas entities like Kolon have been on the rise in recent months, thanks to legislation in 2016 that inserted a new federal civil cause of action in the Defend Trade Secrets Act available to individuals seeking to pursue a claim of misappropriation of trade secrets. “I think it’s possible with the current administration we could continue to see prosecutions or at least investigations of foreign companies that are alleged to have misappropriated the technology that’s made by American companies,” Prince said.
Reprinted with permission from the Daily Journal. ©2017 Daily Journal Corporation. All rights reserved. Reprinted by ReprintPros 949-702-5390
— Eli Wolfe
