SUMMARY
Adam A. Ainslie is a partner at the firm’s San Diego office, litigating cases throughout California. Mr. Ainslie practices in the areas of public entity liability, general liability, and professional liability. Mr. Ainslie has significant experience in litigating matters involving constitutional right violations, dangerous conditions of public property, catastrophic personal injuries and wrongful death, legal malpractice, and construction defect. He has successfully tried multiple cases to verdict receiving defense verdicts and verdicts below last/best settlement demands and has argued several cases before the California Court of Appeals where he has received decisions affirming the positive results obtained at the trial court level.
Mr. Ainslie routinely represents public entities and their employees in matters involving dangerous roadway designs, negligent maintenance, negligent emergency vehicle operation for both fire departments and law enforcement, varying constitutional violations such as excessive force, false arrest/warrantless detentions, fabricated evidence/judicial deception, malicious prosecution, and deliberate indifference to medical needs, and employment claims such as wrongful termination, discrimination (age, disability, gender, national origin, and race), harassment, and retaliation. Mr. Ainslie also represents contractors, design professionals, transportation companies, energy facilities, landowners/managers and more in cases involving automobile, construction, job site, and other general premises incidents that often involve catastrophic injuries or death. Besides serving as defense counsel in these type of cases, Mr. Ainslie also provides valuable excess exposure consulting services for excess/umbrella carriers on large exposure cases. Further, Mr. Ainslie represents design professionals in complex multi-party construction defect litigation and lawyers/law firms in legal malpractice claims and State Bar investigations where professional standards, ethics and integrity are central issues.
In addition to his litigation practice, Mr. Ainslie also consults with and advises governmental agencies and private companies on issues of risk management in the context of civil rights, premises liability, and employment practices.
Mr. Ainslie is currently a member of several professional associations, including the North County Bar Association, the American Bar Association, the Sports Lawyers Association, and the Public Agency Risk Management Association (PARMA). Mr. Ainslie received his Bachelors of Interdisciplinary Studies in Socio-Legal Studies and Ethics from Arizona State University in Tempe, Arizona and his Juris Doctor from Southwestern Law School in Los Angeles, California.
EXPERIENCE
Defense Verdict in Habitability Case: Mr. Ainslie represented a landowner (company and individual) and property management company that were sued for various claims involving the habitability of an apartment building in Los Angeles and resulting damages from alleged toxic exposure to mold and asbestos. Due to unreasonable demands from the plaintiff, the matter proceed to jury trial where Mr. Ainslie as second chair obtained a grant of nonsuit for the individual and a defense verdict of all five causes of action for both the landowner company and property management company.
Partial Defense Verdict in Legal Malpractice Case: Mr. Ainslie represented several lawyers and their law firms in a legal malpractice lawsuit brought by two former clients who alleged the lawyers mishandled a toxic tort personal injury lawsuit against their former apartment building and property manager. Despite diligent efforts to resolve the matter due to the presence of a declining “burning limits” insurance policy, the case was unable to be resolved and proceeded to jury trial. Mr. Ainslie as second chair put on the defense case which resulted in a defense verdict for one lawyer and his law firm. Although a verdict was rendered against the other two lawyers and the partnership, due to persuasive advocacy, Mr. Ainslie was able to help convince the jury to award more than 80% less than what the plaintiffs had requested from the jury and below the last/best final demand received prior to trial.
Verdict Below Statutory Offer to Compromise: Mr. Ainslie represented a fire department that was sued for a traffic collision caused by one of its on-duty drivers. Plaintiff claimed permanent injuries which necessitated two surgeries and the need for two additional future surgeries. Through aggressive expert discovery and pre-trial motions Mr. Ainslie was able to reduce the total claimable medical damages by over $1 million dollars. The matter proceeded to jury trial where Mr. Ainslie as second chair helped defend the fire department which resulted in a verdict that was less than half of the statutory offer to compromise.
Injunctive and Declaratory Relief Along With Damages and Attorneys’ Fees: Mr. Ainslie represented two homeowners in a property line dispute. The matter went to a bench trial where Mr. Ainslie as lead and sole counsel successfully demonstrated the validity of the property line survey, the improper encroachment by the defendants, and unlawful retaliatory actions taken by the defendants. The court found in favor of Mr. Ainslie’s clients by issuing a judgment of declaratory relief that the property line survey was conclusive, injunctive relief requiring the encroachments be removed, and monetary damages for the costs of the surveying, emotional distress, and recovery of all attorneys’ fees.
Summary Judgment for Public Entity in Wrongful Death Case: Mr. Ainslie represented a public entity defending against claims that a roadway was in a dangerous condition that caused the death of a child while crossing street. Plaintiff alleged the lack of traffic control devices, and the timing of light sequences contributed to the dangerous condition. After Mr. Ainslie successfully obtained summary judgment at the trial court level, he continued to handle the matter through appeal where he received a unanimous decision affirming the trial court’s grant of summary judgment. Sanchez v. Cnty. of Los Angeles, No. B289877, 2019 WL 5445659 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 24, 2019).
Summary Judgment Affirmed on Appeal in Wrongful Death Case: Mr. Ainslie represented a public entity on appeal defending a trial court’s grant of summary judgment in a wrongful death dangerous condition case. The court of appeal’s tentative ruling was to reverse the trial court finding triable issues of material fact, but having been persuaded by Mr. Ainslie’s argument, the court issued a unanimous decision affirming the trial court’s grant of summary judgment. Duran v. Cnty. of Los Angeles, No. B311324, 2023 WL 3316281 (Cal. Ct. App. May 9, 2023).
Summary Judgment Affirmed on Appeal in Wrongful Death Case: Mr. Ainslie represented a public entity on appeal defending a trial court’s grant of summary judgment in a wrongful death dangerous condition case. Following the court of appeal’s tentative ruling to affirm the trial court’s grant of summary judgment, the court issued a unanimous decision affirming the trial court’s exclusion of critical expert opinions and grant of summary judgment. H.D. v. Cnty. of Los Angeles, No. B326811, 2024 WL 3517399 (Cal. Ct. App. July 24, 2024).
Summary Judgment for Public Entity on Civil Rights Claims: Mr. Ainslie represented a district attorney’s office, sheriff’s department and an individual detective against claims of fabricated evidence, conspiracy to suborn perjury, withholding exculpatory evidence and unconstitutional policies, practices and procedures with regards to the rights of the accused. The claims were made by a former prisoner who served one of the longest reversed convictions in California history. Mr. Ainslie successfully obtained summary judgment for the public entities and partial summary judgment for the detective, which ultimately led to a favorable settlement before trial.
Judgment and Sanctions Granted in Frivolous Employment Suit: Mr. Ainslie represented a social services department and an individual supervising social worker defending against a former worker’s allegations of disability discrimination, harassment and retaliation that culminated termination. Mr. Ainslie successfully obtained judgment on the pleadings against all claims and causes of action based on a unique statute of limitation defense. After the dispositive judgment, Mr. Ainslie obtained over $11,000 in sanctions against plaintiff and his counsel as the court found the lawsuit was frivolous. This was the second time Mr. Ainslie had obtained judgment on the pleadings based on this unique statute of limitation defense as he previously successfully represented a police department and individual officers in another similar employment lawsuit.
Summary Judgment for Public Entity with Defenses Costs: Mr. Ainslie represented a public entity defending claims that an intersection was in a dangerous condition due to a “lagging yellow” light that resulted in the plaintiff suffering a below-the-knee amputation. Mr. Ainslie successfully obtained summary judgment demonstrating no such condition existed and that the entity was otherwise immune for not having a protect left turn. Mr. Ainslie was then able to convince the trial court to award attorneys’ fees on the basis that no reasonable attorney would believe such claims were actionable.
Dismissal of Public Entity and Probation Officers in Civil Rights Suit: Mr. Ainslie represented a public entity and several individual probation officers who were sued for Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment violations for a compliance check search on a probationer that was subject to a legislatively enacted reduction in his probation term. Mr. Ainslie successfully obtained a dismissal with prejudice of the federal civil rights and related state law claims on the basis that there was no constitutional violation because the law was not self-implementing without judicial action reducing the probation sentence and thus the plaintiff was still on probation at the time of the search.
Dismissal of Defamation Lawsuit: Mr. Ainslie represented a security guard of a gate-community who was sued by two homeowners for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress as it related to the guard’s handling of a guest incident. Mr. Ainslie obtained judgment on the pleadings for the security guard on the basis that a prior small claims action against the security guard’s employer for similar theories barred the action.
Summary Judgment in Construction Defect Suit: Mr. Ainslie represented a landscape architect in a complex multi-party construction defect lawsuit who was claimed to have negligently designed the sprinkler system at the property which resulted in excess water against the residence and ultimately water intrusion damage. Through detailed discovery efforts Mr. Ainslie was able to show that the design of the sprinkler system was not the cause of the damages and that the landscape architect did not owe a legal duty of care to parties that did not hire the architect such that the architect could not be held liable. The court granted the landscape architect’s motion for summary judgment thereby ending his involvement in the case.
Dismissal of Public Entity in Civil Rights Suit: Mr. Ainslie represented a public entity that was sued for various Fourteenth Amendment violations as it relates to placement of an individual on post-release community supervision. Mr. Ainslie successfully obtained a dismissal of all claims through a motion for judgment on the pleadings on the grounds that no such constitutional violations could be pled.
Dismissal for Deputy Sheriff on Heck Grounds: Mr. Ainslie represented a sheriff’s deputy accused of excessive force during a call for service at home. Mr. Ainslie brought a successful persuaded both the federal magistrate and district court judge to dismiss the action on the grounds that the excessive force claims were barred by the Heck doctrine in that the Plaintiff was convicted of resisting arrest arising out of the same incident.
PROFESSIONAL MEMBERSHIPS
- State Bar of California
- American Bar Association (Section of Litigation)
- Sports Lawyers Association
- Public Agency Risk Management Association (PARMA) – San Diego Chapter
- North County Bar Association
PUBLICATIONS/SEMINARS
Publications
- The Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act Isn’t So Uniform: Why Daily Fantasy Sports Should Be Exempt, Sports Litigation Alert, November 2014
- The Burden of Protecting Live Sports Telecasts: The Real Time Problem of Live Streaming and App-Based Technology, December 2015
- Personnel Records Not So Personal Anymore: Changes to the Confidentiality of Peace Officer Records, December 2018
- Navigating Design Immunity in Public Property Cases, June 2022
Seminars
- Episode 61 – #TheHuddle: The Northwestern-NLRB Decision and Student Athlete Compensation, Law and Batting Order, April 2014
- Episode 107 – Sports Broadcasting and Internet Piracy, Law and Batting Order, February 2016
- Avoiding Litigation One Step at a Time, Independent Cities Risk Management Authority, February 2019
- Dangerous Condition of Public Property – Hidden Liability, Independent Cities Risk Management Authority, January 2021
- Dangerous Condition of Public Property (Inspection, Record Keeping, Maintenance), Independent Cities Risk Management Authority, June 2022
- A Look at Recent Case Law Impacting Public Works, California Joint Powers Insurance Authority, Public Works Academy, June 2024
- Risk Management for Trust and Estate Lawyers, North County Bar Association, Trust and Estate Section, July 2024
- A Look at Recent Case Law Impacting Public Works, California Joint Powers Insurance Authority, City of Azusa, February 2025