Allison Lawrence is an Associate in Tyson & Mendes’ San Francisco office. Her practice focuses primarily on general litigation, premises liability and personal injury matters. Ms. Lawrence has extensive litigation experience defending clients in both civil and criminal California state courts.
Ms. Lawrence has successfully argued hundreds of cases in jury and bench trials, evidentiary hearings, and settlement negotiations. Ms. Lawrence has also argued numerous appeals with great success, and even had one of her briefs certified to the California Court of Appeals. Ms. Lawrence is an aggressive and relentless advocate for her clients.
Ms. Lawrence received a dual Bachelor’s Degree in Philosophy and Sociology from University of San Diego. She earned her J.D. from Golden Gate University, School of Law. During her time at Golden Gate University, Ms. Lawrence interned with Prisoner Legal Services, where she assisted inmates in five different San Francisco County jail facilities. During her time with Prisoner Legal Services, she advocated for fair treatment of incarcerated individuals of all demographics. Ms. Lawrence is licensed to practice law in California.
In her free time, Ms. Lawrence enjoys spending time with her family. She also enjoys travel, music, and cheering on her Warriors, 49ers and Giants.
Recent PostsRodriguez v. Department of Transportation: California Public Entities Shielded From Guesswork Games When Approving Public Property Designs
In March, 2018, the California Court of Appeal decided an interesting issue with regarding defective designs on public property in Rodriguez v. Department of Transportation, Case No. F074027 (March 27, 2018). The Court had to decide whether a public entity could avoid liability through the affirmative defense of design immunity. In a nutshell, the Court rejected plaintiff’s assertion that a public official’s approval of a design does not constitute an exercise of discretionary authority under Government Code section 830.6 when there is a failure to consider a safety measure that would have prevented the plaintiff’s injury. In other words, a government entity is not required to consider all safety measures as long as the approved design is found to be reasonable. This rather complicated decision requires further factual analysis to fully understand. Read on.United Riggers & Erectors v. Coast Iron & Steel: Can Contractors Withhold Retention Payments from Subcontractors?
When a general contractor subcontracts work in California, it is standard practice that payment is made by the general contractor to the subcontractor on a monthly basis. The contractor is allowed to withhold a certain amount of the payment due as a retention in order to ensure that the subcontractor continues to uphold their end of the bargain at the expected level of quality. The payment of these retention funds is dictated by Civil Code § 8800 et. seq, and in particular § 8814 subdivision (a) which mandates that the payment of the retention must be made by the direct contractor to the subcontractor within ten days of the direct contractor receiving all or part of the retention payment. Failure to make the payment can result in two financial penalties for the direct contractor: a two percent penalty per month of the amount withheld as well as any fees resulting from the litigation brought by the subcontractor to collect the funds. Subdivision (c) allows for one general circumstance when the retention payment may be withheld, stating “If a good faith dispute exists between the direct contractor and a subcontractor, the direct contractor may withhold from the retention to the subcontractor an amount not in excess of 150 percent of the estimated value of the disputed amount.” (See Cal. Civ. Code, § 8814, subd. (c) (Section 8814(c)).)National Deaf Academy, LLC v. Townes: Medical Malpractice Claims Made Murkier
Florida courts have grappled with the issue of whether or not claims for quasi-medical injuries occurring in a hospital, medical clinic, or physician’s office, automatically fall under the regulations of Florida’s medical malpractice statutes, or should be brought as ordinary negligence claims. Likewise, plaintiffs claiming damages resulting from these quasi-medical injuries were torn between filing claims under the purview of medical malpractice statutes, or simply filing claims asserting ordinary negligence. Does the classification make any difference? The short answer is, yes.State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Fisher: Colorado Auto Insurance Premiums Skyrocket
On May 21, 2018, the Colorado Supreme Court shook up traditional auto insurance norms when it decided State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance Company v. Fisher, 2018, No. 15SC472. In a nutshell, the Court held insurers have a duty not to unreasonably delay or deny payment of covered benefits, even when there may be remaining liability and/or damage disputes in existence regarding the insured’s claim.McMillan Albany LLC v. The Superior Court of Kern County: A Landmark Decision for California Builders and the Understanding of the Right to Repair Act
Builders have long awaited a decision on the hot button topic of whether or not homeowners may assert common law causes of action such as negligence and strict liability against builders in relation to construction defects. This past January, the California Supreme Court held the “Right to Repair Act” is the exclusive remedy for construction defect claims. The Court also held that all claims seeking recovery for defect damages are subject to the Right to Repair Act’s pre-litigation procedures, regardless of the allegations present in the pleadings. The decision is a landmark one for builders, general contractors, and developers.No Good Deed Goes Unpunished? An Overview of Workers’ Compensation Benefits for Volunteers in Nevada
Workers’ compensation is a widely utilized form of insurance in the United States for employees injured during the course of their employment. Although most of the public is familiar with the general principles of workers’ compensation, the inner workings of its concepts are complex and require specialized knowledge to fully comprehend.
Nevada was one of the earliest states to adopt a set of industrial insurance laws, which included regulations governing a workers’ compensation program. Since 1913, Nevada has provided its citizens with workers’ compensation benefits. In the last 100 years, the state’s workers’ compensation laws have been in flux and have constantly changed. Because of this, courts are constantly called upon to decide matters regarding benefits for individuals injured on the job.