Tad Allan

Of Counsel

Disclaimer

Thank you for your interest. Before you communicate with one of our attorneys, please note: Any comments our attorneys share with you are general information and not legal advice. No attorney-client relationship will exist between you or your business and O’Melveny or any of its attorneys unless conflicts have been cleared, our management has given its approval, and an engagement letter has been signed. Meanwhile, you agree: we have no duty to advise you or provide you with legal assistance; you will not divulge any confidences or send any confidential or sensitive information to our attorneys (we are not in a position to keep it confidential and might be required to convey it to our clients); and, you may not use this contact to attempt to disqualify O’Melveny from representing other clients adverse to you or your business. By clicking "accept" you acknowledge receipt and agree to all of the terms of this paragraph and our Disclaimer.

For more than 30 years, Tad Allan has represented O’Melveny’s technology, aviation, and automobile clients in large, complex trials. Companies rely on him to navigate the most serious legal hurdles, including multi-billion-dollar lawsuits, wrongful death cases, and commercial disputes. Legal500 describes Tad as being “highly valued by clients."

Tad was a member of the trial team that obtained a defense jury verdict in a US$12 billion antitrust case brought by Rambus, Inc. against SK hynix Inc., a result that also was hailed by the Daily Journal as a Top Defense Verdict. Tad also obtained a US$58 million judgment for a subsidiary of Lockheed Martin in litigation against the State of California concerning a failed software development contract.

VIEW MORE

Admissions

Bar Admissions

  • California

Education

  • George Washington University, J.D., 1981 
  • University of California at Berkeley, B.A., 1976

Professional Activities

Member

  • State Bar of California
  • California State Bar Commission on Judicial Nominees Evaluation (2011-2013)
  • Guimei v. General Electric Co., 172 Cal. App. 4th 689 (2009) (case arising out of air crash in China properly stayed in favor of proceedings in China, on forum non conveniens grounds) 
  • Daugherty v. American Honda Motor Co., Ltd., 144 Cal. App. 4th 824 (2006) (auto manufacturer not liable for defects that do not manifest within the warranty period) 
  • In re Claremont Acquisition Corp., 186 B.R. 977 (C.D. Cal. 1995), aff’d, 113 F.3d 1029 (9th Cir. 1997) (GM’s decision to reject a prospective dealer upheld since based on objective, performance-related criteria) 
  • Woods v. Saturn Distribution Corp., 78 F.3d 424 (9th Cir. 1996) (award of arbitration panel consisting of Saturn employees and dealers enforced notwithstanding charge of “evident bias”)