×
Go back to Martindale-Avvo ➔

Lafayette & Kumagai LLPPartner
Gary Tracy Lafayette

Gary Tracy Lafayette

Not yet reviewed

1300 Clay Street, Suite 810, Oakland, CA 94612

Appellate Practice, Labor and Employment, Civil Practice and 9 more

About Gary Tracy Lafayette

Gary Tracy Lafayette is a lawyer practicing appellate practice, labor and employment, civil practice and 9 other areas of law. Gary received a A.B. degree from Dartmouth College in 1975, and has been licensed for 47 years. Gary practices at Lafayette & Kumagai LLP in Oakland, CA.

Gary Tracy Lafayette (Oakland, California)

Awards

AV Preeminent Peer Rated
This elite award is granted to attorneys who have been recognized by their peers for their very high ethical standards, with an average peer review score of 4.5 or higher.
Martindale-Hubbell Peer AV

Client Champion Awards

Client Champion awards recognize those attorneys who excel at service as affirmed by their clients. The awards, based on the quantity and quality of an attorney’s Martindale-Hubbell client reviews, demonstrate an ongoing commitment to delivering excellent client service. Award recipients stand out from their peers with a platinum, gold or silver icon.

Champion Badge Silver

At least three reviews and a score of 4.0 or higher.

Champion Badge Gold

At least six reviews and a score of 4.2 or higher.

Champion Badge Platinum

At least ten reviews and a score of 4.5 or higher.

Martindale Peer Awards

A lawyer who receives a minimum threshold of qualifying responses from fellow attorneys can qualify for one of three prestigious Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Ratings:

Martindale-Hubbell Peer AV Preeminent Rating

AV Preeminent®: The highest peer rating standard. This rating signifies a large number of the lawyer’s peers rank him or her at the highest level of professional excellence for their legal knowledge, communication skills and ethical standards.

Gary Tracy Lafayette got this award in 2021

Martindale-Hubbell Peer Distinguished Rating

Distinguished: An excellent rating for a lawyer with some experience. This rating indicates the attorney is widely respected by their peers for high professional achievement and ethical standards.

Martindale-Hubbell Peer Notable Rating

Notable: This rating indicates that the lawyer has been recognized by a large number of their peers for strong ethical standards.

Avvo Awards

Avvo Top Contributor

Avvo Top Contributor: The Avvo Top Contributor Award is granted to attorneys who have earned significant contribution points in a given year on our sister site, Avvo.com. Contribution points are earned by answering questions in Q&A, publishing Legal Guides, and other useful contributions to the Avvo community.

Avvo Client Choice

Avvo Client’s Choice: The Avvo Client's Choice Award Badge is granted to attorneys with a significant number of 4+ star reviews in a given year.

Reviews for Gary

This lawyer does not have any client reviews on Lawyers.com yet

Write a Review

Services

Areas of Law

  • Appellate Practice
  • Labor and Employment
  • Civil Practice
  • Business Law 1
    • Business Litigation
  • Commercial Litigation
  • Class Actions
  • Products Liability
  • Litigation 1
    • Complex Litigation
  • Alternative Dispute Resolution 2
    • Mediation
    • Arbitration
  • Other 2
    • Trial Practice
    • Employment Litigation

Practice Details

  • Payment Information
    Payment & Cost Features
    Fixed hourly rates
  • Firm Information
    Position
    Partner
    Firm Name
    Lafayette & Kumagai LLP
    Firm Onwership
    Minority Owned
  • Representative Cases & Transactions
    Cases
    HUD v. Rucker, 535 U.S. 125 (2002)
    Embury v. King, 179 Fed. Appx. 409 (9th Cir. 2006)
    Embury v. King, 361 F.3d 562 (9th Cir. 2004)
    Lifescan, Inc. v. Premier Diabetic Services, Inc., 363 F.3d 1010 (9th Cir. 2004)
    U.S. ex rel. Honeywell, Inc. v. San Francisco Housing Authority, 83 Fed.Appx. 181 (9th Cir. 2003)
    Rucker v. Davis, 304 F.3d 904 (9th Cir. 2002)
    Rucker v. Davis, 237 F.3d 1113 (9th Cir. 2001)
    Rucker v. Davis, 203 F.3d 627 (9th Cir. 2000)
    In re Unicom Corp., 21 F.3d 1116 (9th Cir. 1994)
    In re Berr (Berr v. FDIC), 172 BR 299 (9th Cir. BAP 1994)
    Embury v. King, 191 F.Supp.2d 1071 (2001)
    Honeywell v. San Francisco Housing Authority, 164 F.Supp.2d 1130 (2001)
    Kaiser Permanente Employees Pension Benefit Plan v. Bertozzi, 849 F.Supp. 692 (1994)
    Reeves v. MV Transportation, Inc., 186 Cal.App.4th 666 (2010)
    Cerna v. City of Oakl
    , 161 Cal.App.4th 1340 (2008)
    Wellpoint Health Networks, Inc. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County, 59 Cal.App.4th 110 (1997)
    Donohue v. San Francisco Housing Authority, 16 Cal.App.4th 658 (1993)
    Donohue v. San Francisco Housing Authority, 281 Cal.Rptr. 446 (1991).

Experience

  • Bar Admission & Memberships
    Admissions
    1979, California
    U.S. District Court, Northern District of California
    U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California
    U.S. District Court, Central District of California
    U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
    2002, U.S. Supreme Court
    Memberships
    Bar Association of San Francisco (Member: Lawyers Referral Committee, 1982-1984
    Executive Committee, Litigation Section, 1993-2003)
    State Bar of California
    American Bar Association
    National Bar Association (Member: Commercial Law Section)
    Charles Houston Bar Association.
    Bar Fellowship
    Litigation Counsel of America.
  • Education & Certifications
    Law School
    University of California, Boalt Hall School of Law
    Class of 1979
    J.D.
    Other Education
    Dartmouth College
    Class of 1975
    A.B.

Email Gary Tracy Lafayette

Case type is required.
A valid zip code is required.
A valid city is required.
State is required.
Country is required.
Outside the US or Canada? Click here
Message is required.
0/1000 characters

Contact Information

First name is required.
Last name is required.
A valid email address is required.
A valid phone number is required.

By clicking the Submit button, you agree to the Terms of Use, Supplemental Terms and Privacy Policy. You also consent to be contacted at the phone number you provided, including by autodials, text messages and/or pre-recorded calls, from Lawyers.com and its affiliates and from or on behalf of attorneys you request or contact through this site. Consent is not a condition of purchase.

Thank you! Your message has been successfully sent.

For your records, a copy of this email has been sent to

Summary of Your Message
Case Type:
Zip Code or Postal Code:
City:
State:
Country:
Case Description:
Contact Information
First Name:
Last Name:
Email:
Phone Number:
Return to Profile
Lawyers.com Client Reviews

Martindale-Hubbell® Client Review Ratings™ display reviews submitted by individuals who have either hired or consulted the lawyers or law firms.

The Client Review Rating score is determined through the aggregation of validated responses. People who submit reviews are either individuals who consulted with the lawyer/law firm or who hired the lawyer/law firm and want to share their experience of that lawyer or law firm with other potential clients. Reviewers can be anyone who consults or hires a lawyer including in-house counsel, corporate executives, small business owners, and private individuals.

Martindale-Hubbell validates that a reviewer is a person with a valid email address. As part of the review process, respondents must affirm that they have had an initial consultation, are currently a client or have been a client of the lawyer or law firm identified, although Martindale-Hubbell cannot confirm the lawyer/client relationship as it is often confidential. The content of the responses is entirely from reviewers.

Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome and Martindale-Hubbell accepts no responsibility for the content or accuracy of any review. For more information on Martindale-Hubbell Client Review Ratings, please visit our Client Review Page

Martindale Peer Reviews

Martindale-Hubbell® Peer Review Ratings™ are the gold standard in attorney ratings, and have been for more than a century. These ratings indicate attorneys who are widely respected by their peers for their ethical standards and legal expertise in a specific area of practice.

The Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Ratings process is the gold standard due to its objectivity and comprehensiveness. Lawyers solicited for peer reviews include both those selected by the attorney being reviewed and lawyers independently selected by Martindale-Hubbell. All reviewers are verified as attorneys through Martindale-Hubbell’s extensive attorney database. Only attorneys practicing at least three years and receiving a sufficient number of reviews from non-affiliated attorneys are eligible to receive a Rating.

What are the different Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Ratings?*

• AV Preeminent®: The highest peer rating standard. This rating signifies that a large number of the lawyer’s peers rank him or her at the highest level of professional excellence for their legal knowledge, communication skills and ethical standards.

• Distinguished: An excellent rating for a lawyer with some experience. This rating indicates the attorney is widely respected by their peers for high professional achievement and ethical standards.

• Notable: This rating indicates that the lawyer has been recognized by a large number of their peers for strong ethical standards.

Lawyers who have received peer reviews after 2009 will display more detailed information, including practice areas, summary ratings, detailed numeric ratings and written feedback (if available). Details for individual reviews received before 2009 are not displayed.

Attorneys that receive reviews from their peers, but not a sufficient number to establish a Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Rating, will have those reviews display on our websites.

For more information on Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Ratings™, please visit our Ratings Page on Martindale.com and our Frequently Asked Questions