Lawyer Rating and Reviews
Reviewed by Douglas Patrick Roy April 14, 2020
Nathan was strategic and effective. He quickly saw that the relevant case law was evolving in a way that was beneficial to his client and brought it to the attention of the judge early and often. Nathan was a strong advocate for his client while also being reasonable and respectful in dealings with opposing counsel.
Claimed Lawyer ProfileOffers Video ChatQ&ALII Gold
- Business Law
Additional Practice Areas
- Business Litigation
- Commercial Litigation
- Commercial Collections
Video Chat and Conferencing
Rates, Retainers and Additional Information
Contingency fees available on certain matters.
Jurisdictions Admitted to Practice
- English: Spoken, Written
- Trial Attorney
- Nathan D. Wirtschafter, Corp.
- Loyola Law School, Los Angeles
- J.D. (1995) | Law
- Published "Fourth Quarter Choke: How the IRS Blew the Corporate Sponsorship Game," 27 Loy. L.A. L. Rev. 1465 (1994).
- Honors: Student Body President; Day Division 1993-94
- Activities: Editor, Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review
- Johns Hopkins University
- B.A. (1990) | History
- Loyola College
- M.A. (1990) | History
- Masters thesis entitled "Peter Drucker: Apostle of Modern Management."
- State Bar of California
- - Current
Articles & Publications
- How a Writ of Attachment Can Lead to Quick Payment of an Unpaid Promissory Note, Contract or Accounts Receivable
Websites & Blogs
- Firm website
18 Questions Answered
- Q. Is a Contract automatically canceled that do not have a force majeure clause language in the contract?
- A: Based on the facts as you present them, here are some points to consider: 1. There is a lawful contract for the venue to host the wedding at the end of this year. 2. If there is no force majeure clause excusing performance, the venue may be in breach in contract if it does not host the wedding at the end of the year. 3. The venue may argue that government regulations make it impossible to perform. “Frustration of Purpose,” also called “Impossibility of Performance,” is a defense to an action for breach of contract. The Restatement Second of Contracts, Discharge by Supervening Frustration, Section 265, states that: “Where, after a contract is made, a party's principal purpose is substantially frustrated without his fault by the occurrence of an event the non-occurrence of which was a basic assumption on which the contract was made, his remaining duties to render performance are discharged, unless the language or the circumstances indicate the contrary.” 4. Then, the question is whether the imposition of government regulations, such as a lockdown in response to a pandemic, is a foreseeable event. 5. Finally, "frustration of purpose" can be a temporary event. The Restatement Second of Contracts, Section 269, states that: “Impracticability of performance or frustration of purpose that is only temporary suspends the obligor’s duty to perform while the impracticability or frustration exists but does not discharge his duty or prevent it from arising unless his performance after the cessation of the impracticability or frustration would be materially more burdensome than had there been no impracticability or frustration.” Justia has an excellent tool, "Find-a-Lawyer," to locate an experienced, competent attorney in your area. Good luck.
- Q. We foreclosed on 4/30/20 on the people to whom we sold our house. They won't move out. What are the laws re eviction?
- A: You need counsel. Justia has an excellent tool ("Find A Lawyer") for you to find a local, competent attorney in your area.
- Q. Arbitrator found: Seller & Realtor fraud ok, buyer beware. Opposite of CA law. Buyer pay everything, seller reimbursed
- A: There are only limited grounds to challenge an arbitrator’s award in California Superior Court. A party may file a petition to vacate or correct an arbitration award under Code of Civil Procedure section 1285. There are no other grounds to challenge the award. [Moncharsh v. Heily & Blase (1992) 3 Cal.4th 1, 12-13]. The merits of the award are generally not reviewable by the Court. For example, the Court will neither review the evidence nor the arbitrator’s legal reasoning. The court may not substitute its reasoning for the decision of the arbitrator. Generally speaking, the arbitrator’s errors of law are not reviewable in state court, although, in federal court, the result may be different. The fact that an error of law causes “substantial injustice” is not grounds to vacate or correct the award. An award will usually be upheld even where the arbitrator incorrectly applied the law or considered inadmissible evidence. Parties may agree to expanded judicial review of the arbitration award. For example, parties may agree to judicial review of the arbitration award for errors of law. Your attorney can best give you advice on how to proceed in this situation.
Contact & Map