Christopher H. Whelan

Attorney in Gold River, CA


Practice:
Thirty-five years of practice in California. Thirty-two years specializing in Plaintiff-side employment and defamation trials and litigation. A-V rated for over a decade.


Awards and Recognition: Northern California “Super Lawyer” since 2005; a “Best Lawyer in Sacramento — Labor and Employment Law” since 2006. Top 25 Lawyers of Sacramento 2013; Recognized in 2009 in Daily Journal as one of the Top 10 Plaintiff’s Employment Lawyers in California; Best Lawyers in America since 2006; Authored numerous articles of defamation and employment issues; Frequent lecturer on defamation, employment and trial practice for NELA, CELA, CAOC, CCTLA, ABOTA and California State Bar.

Professional Contributions: The defamation section of Wrongful Employment Termination Practice, CEB; participated in creating the California Judicial Council Employment Form Interrogatories; 2013 Contributing Editor to Chapter 5 (Employment Tort Claims), The Rutter Group’s, California Practice Guide: Employment Litigation.

Trial Work: Twelve jury verdicts/judgments in excess of 1 million dollars including: $1.1M Johnson v. EBI (defamation/wrongful Termination); $1.4M Wilson v. Continental Cable (defamation/wrongful termination); $7.5 Boucher v. Foundation Health (defamation); $2.1M Hernandez v. Thasos (defamation); $2.6M Richards v. CH2MHill (verdict and fees) (disability); $4.3M Wallace and Vannucci v. Anheuser Busch (multi-plaintiff/verdict sexual harassment); $1.35M Bebensee v. Accubanc (verdict and fees) (Sex harassment); $2.6M Mullins v. CalFarm (Lab. Code 970); $19M Roby v. McKesson HBOC (disability), one of the top 100 verdicts in US in 2004 and the largest disability discrimination/medical leave verdict in California history; Johnson v. Sears $8.4 ($5.2M verdict, $3.2M fees). This record included three (3) million dollar plus verdicts in one year.

916-635-5577
Free Consultation
Client Rating N/A help_info
Submit a client review

Peer Rating 5.0 of 5

Areas of Law

  • Sexual Harassment
  • Disability Discrimination
  • Defamation
  • Employment Discrimination
  • Wrongful Termination
  • Labor and Employment
  • Discrimination
  • Civil Litigation

 

Peer Rating

av

Overall Peer Rating

5.0 out of 5.0
  • Meets very high criteria of general ethical standards
No feedback is available.
The individuals that have reviewed this lawyer have not provided any additional feedback.

Experience & Credentials

Position

Principal

Admission Details

Admitted in 1978, California

Additional Payment Information
  • Free Initial Consultation
  • Law School Attended

    Hastings College of the Law, University of California
    Class of 1977
    J.D.

    University Attended

    University of California at Los Angeles
    Class of 1974
    B.A. in Economics

    Associations & Memberships

    State Bar of California; Sacramento County Bar Association (Past Member, Executive Board, Labor and Employment Section); California Employment Lawyers Association — CELA (Executi... More

    Bar Fellowship

    College of Labor and Employment Lawyers.

    Representative Cases

    Krentz v. CIGNA (9th Cir. 1989) 886 F.2d 1177; Page v. Superior Court (3Net) (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 1206 (manager's liability for harassment); Rains v. Criterion Systems (9th Cir. 1996) 80 F.3d 339; Richards v. CH2M Hill (2001) 26 Cal.4th 798 (landmark continuing violation doctrine decision); State Dept. of Health Services v. Sup. Ct. (McGinnis) (20... More

    Contact Information

    Phone

    916-635-5577

    Fax

    916-635-9159


    Office Information
    Christopher H. Whelan
    Principal
     11246 Gold Express Drive, Suite 100,
    Gold River, CA 95670-4425

    Loading...

    Logo
    Christopher H. Whelan, Inc. (Gold River, California)

    About Client Rating
    About Peer Rating

    Welcome to Martindale-Hubbell® Client Review, a new ratings service that allows you to view and provide feedback on a lawyer or law firm on service and relationship qualities such as Communication Ability, Responsiveness, Quality of Service, and Value for Money.

    Determining a Rating

    The Client Review Rating is determined through aggregation of validated responses. This compilation of Client Reviews translates to a numerical rating and associate descriptive term on a scale of 1 -5. 1 being lowest as "Rated" and 5 being highest as "Preeminent".

    • 4.5-5.0 Preeminent
    • 3.0-4.4 Distinguished
    • 1-2.9 Rated

    Martindale-Hubbell uses a third-party resource to validate that the respondent is a living person, but cannot confirm the lawyer/client relationship, which in many cases is confidential. Clients must affirm that they are a client of the lawyer or firm identified for review at the time of the completed Client Review.

    The Reviewers

    Those who complete Client Reviews are clients of law firms who hired a lawyer within the last year, whose matter is not pending, and want to share their experience of that lawyer or law firm with other potential clients. Reviewers can be of any type from in-house counsel, corporate executives, small business owners to private individuals, and even sometimes another lawyer in a different jurisdiction.

    Anonymity

    Client Reviews are anonymous and reviewers' identities are not published; however a summary of basic demographics will be part of the display of responses.

    Why do we collect demographics as part of the review?

    Those who are researching a lawyer or law firm like to see that there are other clients who might be "like them". This is valuable information contributing to the decision-making process of hiring a lawyer.

    Martindale-Hubbell's role

    Martindale-Hubbell facilitates the process of Client Review by gathering responses, validating them and aggregating results for display online. The content of the responses are entirely from reviewers, the clients of the firm or lawyer.

    It is important to note that Martindale-Hubbell does not undertake to develop Client Reviews for all firms and lawyers. Therefore, the fact that a firm or lawyer has not been reviewed should not be construed unfavorably. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome and Martindale-Hubbell accepts no responsibility for the content or accuracy of any review over which Martindale-Hubbell exercises no editorial review or control.