×
Go back to Martindale-Avvo ➔

Wood, Smith, Henning & Berman LLPManaging Partner
Steven R. Disharoon
Pro

Steven R. Disharoon

Not yet reviewed

201 1st St., Ste. 209, Petaluma, CA 94952

Appellate, Transportation, Public Entity Defense and 7 more

About Steven R. Disharoon

The managing partner of WSHB’s Sonoma County office, Steve is an accomplished litigator and is certified by The State Bar of California as a Specialist in Appellate Law. Known for his legal writing, analysis, and advocacy, Steve has handled or consulted on well over 100 appellate matters in multiple state and federal courts. His publications are cited on Westlaw as “additional resources” for close to 50 California statutes and Rules of Court. In addition, Steve handles trial level cases in a wide range of areas, including federal law, bodily injury, public entity defense, and others.

In addition to his appellate work, Steve's skills extend to areas involving complex federal and state law, government and public entity issues, premises liability, intellectual property, technology, and transportation. He is adept at accurately assessing risk and recommending cost-effective strategies that best serve his clients’ interests. He prides himself on his communication skills, commitment to ethics, and high-quality legal work. Steve has successfully resolved innumerable cases, whether through dispositive motions (and successful appeals), trial, or settlement.

Steve is also experienced in transactional matters, having negotiated, drafted, and counseled clients regarding purchase/sale contracts, confidentiality agreements, and other complex agreements involving land use, environmental issues, employment, construction, bodily injury, civil rights issues, product liability, and intellectual property rights.

Whatever the legal issue, Steve is a diligent, passionate, and professional advocate who works tirelessly to obtain the best possible results for his clients.

Newsroom

News

•Appellate Court Directs Entry of Summary Judgment for WSHB in Multi-Million Dollar Dog Bite Lawsuit
Trial Results, 12.11.25
•Court of Appeal Upholds Dismissal of Multi-Million Dollar Claim
Appellate Results, 12.4.24
•California Court of Appeal Upholds Dismissal for Failure to Bring Case To Trial
Appellate Results, 10.11.23
•WSHB Win in Complex Elder Abuse and Wrongful Death Suit
Trial Results, 8.30.23
•New Defined Equity Partners Celebrated at WSHB as 2023 Begins
Firm News, 1.9.23
•Managing Partner Steve Disharoon Achieves Distinguished Certification of Appellate Specialist from State Bar of California
Firm News, 9.6.22
•WSHB Expands in California: New Sonoma County Location
Newsroom, 6.26.20
•WSHB Names Eight New Partners
Newsroom, 1.29.18
•Winery Prevails in High Stakes Trademark Trial
Trial Results, 10.10.17

Publications

•California Supreme Court Clarifies Arbitration Fee Payment Rules: Section 1281.98 Is Reconstrued to Survive FAA Challenge, WSHB Case Update, December 29, 2025

•Understanding Appellate Fee Awards in California Discovery After Baer v. Tedder , WSHB Case Update, December 12, 2025
•E-Service Gotchas: When a Single Filing Starts (or Stops) the Appeal Countdown , WSHB Case Update, September 16, 2025
•Driver’s ‘Offline’ Status Shields Uber from Liability in Late-Night Pedestrian Accident, WSHB Case Update, February 18, 2025
•California Supreme Court Declares Arbitration Agreement Unenforceable Based on Principles of Unconscionability and Declines Severance of Unfair Terms , WSHB Case Update, December 26, 2024
•California Court of Appeal Upholds Admissibility of Medicare Eligibility, in an Implicit Rebuke of Pebley v. Santa Clara Organics, WSHB Case Update, September 17, 2024
•Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act Under Fire Once Again, WSHB Article, May 31, 2024
•Empowering Defendants: Appellate Ruling Unveils Hospital Lien Act , WSHB Case Update, November 29, 2023
•Is Arbitration a Good Idea for Your Business?, WSHB Article, November 7, 2023
•Taming the Flames, CLM Magazine, November 2023
•Court of Appeal Rules CCP Section 998 Applies after Stipulated Settlement, WSHB Case Update, August 31, 2023
•A Seismic Shift for Bodily Injury Claims, CLM Magazine, July 6, 2023
•Landmark Ruling: Appeals Court Shakes Up Defense Community with Forced Disclosure of Test Data , WSHB Case Update, May 31, 2023
•Availability of Remote Testimony Does Not Control Venue Determination, WSHB Case Update, September 19, 2022
•The Life of an Appellate Case (2022) 45-MAR L.A. Law. 16
•Where the Legal Winds Are Blowing, Construction Claims Magazine, June 15, 2028
•Pebley v. Santa Clara Opens the Door in California to Inflated Medical Damages Claims, WSHB Case Update, May 11, 2018
•Strategies for Restoring the Right to Repair Act by Challenging the Liberty Mutual and Burch Decisions, DRI Volume 18, Issue 4 (2014)
•Stafford Unified School District No. 1 v. Redding: a Missed Opportunity to Restore Fourth Amendment Rights to School Children, 44 U.S.F. L. Rev. 659 (2010)
•California’s Broken Parole System: Flawed Standards and Insufficient Oversight Threaten the Rights of Prisoners, 44 U.S.F. L. Rev. 177 (2009)

In the News

•Appellate Court Directs Entry of Summary Judgment for WSHB in Multi-Million Dollar Dog Bite Lawsuit
•Court of Appeal Upholds Dismissal of Multi-Million Dollar Claim
•California Court of Appeal Upholds Dismissal for Failure to Bring Case To Trial
•WSHB Win in Complex Elder Abuse and Wrongful Death Suit

 

Steven R. Disharoon (Petaluma, California) View website

Reviews for Steven

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

Write a Review

Services

Areas of Law

  • Transportation
  • Intellectual Property
  • Professional Liability
  • Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility 1
    • Legal Malpractice
  • Other 6
    • Appellate
    • Public Entity Defense
    • Commercial and Business Litigation
    • Cybersecurity and Data Privacy
    • Environmental
    • Complex Tort and Casualty

Practice Details

  • Firm Information
    Position
    Managing Partner
    Firm Name
    Wood, Smith, Henning & Berman LLP
  • Representative Cases & Transactions
    Cases
    Experience: Snover v. Gupta (2025) 116 Cal.App.5th 111
    Hern
    ez v. Taihan Electric, USA, Ltd. (2024) 2d App. Dist., Case No. B333793
    O'Toole v. Oceanview Cottages, LLC (2024) 4th App. Dist., Case No. D080948
    Ortiz-Fern
    ez v. La Clinica (2023) 1st App. Dist., Case No. A162542
    Lee v. Cardiff (2023) 94 Cal.App.5th 398
    Robertson v. Larkspur Courts (2021) 1st App.Dist., Case No. A160942
    Carter v. Clausen (2021) 4th App.Dist., Case No. G060213
    Basile v. The Los Angeles Film School, LLC, et al. (9th Cir. 2020) 827 Fed.Appx. 649
    Kinney v. Three Arch Bay Community Services District (9th Cir. 2020) 829 Fed.Appx. 273
    Sazerac Company, Inc. v. Fetzer Vineyards, Inc. (9th Cir. 2019) 786 Fed.Appx. 662
    Sawabeh International Group v. GenesisTP, Inc. (2019) 1st App. Dist., Case No. A151443
    Robertson v. Larkspur Courts et al. (2018) 1st App. Dist., Case No. A152226
    Sazerac Company, Inc. v. Fetzer Vineyards, Inc. (N.D. Cal. 2017) 265 F.Supp.3d 1013
    Allen v. Amy's Kitchen (2016) 1st App. Dist., Case No. A148194
    Lamb v. San Francisco Electric Tour Co. (2015) 1st App. Dist., Case No. A142888
    Darling v. Superior Court (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 69
  • Additional Links
    http://www.wshblaw.com/attorney/steven-r-disharoon/

Experience

  • Bar Admission & Memberships
    Admissions
    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
  • Education & Certifications
    Law School
    University of San Francisco School of Law
    Class of 2010
    J.D.
    Other Education
    University of California, Santa Cruz
    Class of 2007
    B.A.

Activity

Legal Community Contributions

Email Steven R. Disharoon

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?
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

Attorneys FAQs

  • How many attorneys are in this law firm?
    Wood, Smith, Henning & Berman LLP has 500 attorneys at this location.
  • What law school did this attorney attend?
    Steven R. Disharoon attended University of San Francisco School of Law.
  • What year was this attorney's law firm established?
    Wood, Smith, Henning & Berman LLP was established in 1997.

Attorney information displayed in this FAQ section is based upon information the lawyer has included on their profile, in addition to the information we collect from state bar associations and other organizations that license legal professionals.

These FAQs include information about a lawyer's background, but do not evaluate their knowledge of the law, past performance on individual cases, personality, or communication skills.

It is solely the responsibility of lawyers and law firms to ensure that any information they provide complies with all applicable laws and rules of professional conduct.

You should be aware that the information we rely upon may not be comprehensive, or frequently updated.

Always research the lawyer further to get a better understanding of their license credentials, disciplinary status, background, and experience.

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