Fred A. Rowley, Jr. is a litigation partner based in the Los Angeles and Palo Alto offices of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati. He handles appeals and complex litigation, and serves as co-chair of the firm's nationwide Supreme Court and appellate practice. Fred represents clients ranging from Fortune 100 companies to nonprofit organizations in appeals before federal and state courts across the country. He has argued more than 50 appeals and served as lead counsel in dozens more. He has presented argument before the U.S. Supreme Court, the California Supreme Court, and the Delaware Supreme Court (three-justice and en banc panels). Fred frequently appears before the California Courts of Appeal and the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Ninth and Second Circuits, and has also presented arguments in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit and the Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court. In 2019, Fred was recognized as one of the “Most Influential Minority Lawyers” by the Los Angeles Business Journal. 

Paul Watford is a partner in the Los Angeles office of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, where he is a member of the firm’s litigation department and its national Supreme Court and appellate practice.

Prior to joining the firm, Paul served as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for 11 years. During his tenure on the court, he decided more than 2,000 appeals and drafted more than 600 dispositions. His published opinions addressed numerous areas of federal and state law, including arbitration, bankruptcy, class actions, constitutional, copyright, environmental, immigration, labor and employment, securities, and tax. In one of Paul’s more notable rulings, he authored the Ninth Circuit’s en banc decision in City of Los Angeles v. Patel (2013), a case in which the court struck down, 7-4, a Los Angeles city ordinance authorizing police to conduct surprise inspections of hotel and motel guest registries without obtaining the owners’ consent or a search warrant. The following year, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the Ninth Circuit’s decision invalidating the ordinance in a 5-4 vote.