Terry Ross graduated with his B.A. degree from Stanford University in 1970. Upon graduation from law school at the University of Southern California in 1973, he went to work for Pillsbury, Madison & Sutro in San Francisco. In 1977, he returned to Southern California and joined the law offices of Samuel A. Keesal, Jr. in Long Beach. He was the managing shareholder of Keesal, Young & Logan from 1988 through 2014.
Mr. Ross’s legal specialty has been litigation in the securities, maritime, and employment fields.
Mr. Ross has tried or arbitrated more than 100 such claims in 15 states and U.S. territories, before state and federal courts (jury trials and bench trials) and in various arbitration forums. Mr. Ross also has tried several securities class actions to completion. His employment practice encompasses wrongful termination, discrimination, harassment, defamation, retaliation, and whistleblower claims. He has also defended malicious prosecution, anti-trust, and professional malpractice matters involving attorneys, architects, engineers, and contractors. Mr. Ross also has tried numerous maritime personal injury as well as scuba-diving accident cases to federal and state court juries. Finally, Mr. Ross has defended securities firms and their employees in regulatory proceedings initiated by the Securities and Exchange Commission, the New York Stock Exchange, and the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority.
Mr. Ross also handles appeals, including the following published cases: Dale Burns v. Prudential Securities, Inc., 145 Ohio App. 3d 424 (2001) (in a securities case alleging unauthorized trading by 250 putative class members, defendant appealed a trial court order certifying the plaintiff class; court of appeal affirmed the order granting class certification); Steven Clark v. Prudential Securities, 44 Cal. App. 4th 1498 (1995), (court reversed trial court order denying securities brokerage firm’s motion to compel arbitration), rev. granted, 50 Cal. Rptr. 2d 74 (1996), rev. dismissed, 56 Cal. Rptr. 2d 49 (1996); Jean Schmitz v. Carlos Zilvet, Nicholas S. Meris, and Prudential-Bache Securities, Inc., 20 F.3d 1043 (9th Cir. 1994) (district court denied plaintiff’s motion to vacate arbitration award and confirmed defense award to judgment; Ninth Circuit reversed based on apparent arbitrator bias); Jepson, Inc. v. Makita Corp., 34 F.3d 1321 (7th Cir. 1994) (Seventh Circuit affirmed district court’s order dismissing complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) for failure to plead predicate acts of mail fraud and wire fraud with specificity); Shearson Lehman Brothers, Inc. v. M&L Investments, 10 F.3d 1510 (10th Cir. 1993) (Tenth Circuit reversed trial court’s order dismissing broker-dealer’s breach of contract claim, finding that broker’s violation of Regulation T did not provide customer with an affirmative defense on a claim that he failed to maintain adequate collateral for securities positions); Marshall Mars v. Wedbush Morgan Securities, Inc., 231 Cal. App. 3d 1608 (1991) (court of appeal affirmed trial court’s order granting summary judgment to the defense, finding that a clearing broker is not responsible for the actions of the introducing broker-dealer); Eluid Torres v. Johnson Lines, 932 F.2d 748 (9th Cir. 1991) (Ninth Circuit affirmed district court’s judgment in favor of the defendant because severely injured longshoreman failed to establish that vessel breached its duty of care, failed to establish that exclusion of expert testimony was error, and failed to establish prejudice in connection with the erroneous admission of evidence in light of a curative jury instruction); Bernard Lewis v. Prudential-Bache Securities, 179 Cal. App. 3d (1986) (court affirmed trial court order enforcing mandatory arbitration of putative plaintiff class action); Unioil, Inc. v. E.F. Hutton & Co., 809 F.2d 548 (9th Cir. 1986) (Ninth Circuit affirmed order imposing $294,000 in Rule 11 sanctions against plaintiff’s counsel as a result of plaintiff’s failure to conduct a reasonable inquiry before initiating suit); Bradley Eaton v. Connolly-Pacific, Inc., 134 Cal. App. 3d 825 (1982) (Court of appeal affirmed trial court’s order dismissing plaintiff’s complaint on the ground that plaintiff was not a seaman as defined by the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C. § 668).
Mr. Ross was recognized in Los Angeles Magazine as a Southern California “Super Lawyer” every year since 2005. He also has been recognized since 2009 in Best Lawyers in America, a publication of Woodard White. Finally, Mr. Ross has been recognized as a Fellow of the Litigation Counsel of America since 2010. Mr. Ross is admitted to practice before the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and all of the United States District Courts in California, and was admitted to practice before the United States Supreme Court in 1987. He has been AV® Preeminent rated by Martindale-Hubbell for 25 years.
Thank you for your interest in Lawdragon.