Irvine

Irvine

Download PDFDownload PDF
Print
Share

1920 Main Street, Suite 1000
Irvine, CA 92614-7276
United States

Get Directions

BCLP opened its Irvine office in 1990. Today, it is one of the leading law firms in Orange County, providing clients with a broad spectrum of legal services in virtually all areas of business.

The lawyers in our Irvine office focus their practice in the areas of corporate finance and securities, real estate, environmental, labor and employment, litigation, products liability and class action defense.

In addition, community stewardship is an essential component of the work culture at BCLP. Our Irvine attorneys and staff donate their time and resources to the Orange County Foundation for Oncology Families and Children, Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, City of Hope, Habitat for Humanity, Black Women Lawyers Association and UCLA Law Foundation.

Aileen M. Hunter

Office Managing Partner, Irvine

+1 949 223 7138

Aileen M. Hunter

Office Managing Partner, Irvine

+1 949 223 7138

Meet The Team

Aileen M. Hunter

Office Managing Partner, Irvine

+1 949 223 7138

Related Insights

Insights
Aug 03, 2021

Mid-Market M&A Barometer

Insights
Apr 02, 2021

Supreme Court Issues Game Changing Definition of ATDS Under TCPA

On April 1, 2021, in Facebook v. Duguid, 592 U.S. __(2021), the Supreme Court issued a unanimous and long-awaited ruling clarifying the definition of an “automatic telephone dialing system” (“ATDS”) under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (“TCPA”), 47 U. S. C. § 227(a)(1): an ATDS is a system that uses a random or sequential number generator to dial or store telephone numbers for call. The key piece of this holding is that the “random or sequential” phrase applies to both storing the telephone numbers and dialing the telephone numbers.  Otherwise, the Supreme Court reasoned, any phone capable of storing numbers (e.g., “virtually all modern cell phones”) would be subject to the TCPA’s onerous prior written consent requirements. Instead, unless the device has the capacity “to store . . . telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator” or to “produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator,” that device is not an ATDS and not subject to the strict prior written consent requirements of the TCPA.

Related Insights

News
Nov 14, 2022
BCLP announces 2023 partner class
Insights
Apr 14, 2022
Georgia’s Legislators Pass Critical Bill Amending the State’s Apportionment Statute
Awards
November 4, 2021
U.S. News - Best Lawyers® 'Best Law Firms' 2022
Awards
Aug 19, 2021
The Best Lawyers in America© 2022
News
Aug 09, 2021
BCLP Advises LS Global Franchise L.P. in Sale of GFG to FAT Brands
Insights
Aug 03, 2021
Mid-Market M&A Barometer
Insights
Jun 29, 2021
TransUnion v. Ramirez: The Supreme Court Further Narrows Article III Standing And Rejects “No Injury” Class Actions
Insights
Apr 02, 2021
Supreme Court Issues Game Changing Definition of ATDS Under TCPA
On April 1, 2021, in Facebook v. Duguid, 592 U.S. __(2021), the Supreme Court issued a unanimous and long-awaited ruling clarifying the definition of an “automatic telephone dialing system” (“ATDS”) under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (“TCPA”), 47 U. S. C. § 227(a)(1): an ATDS is a system that uses a random or sequential number generator to dial or store telephone numbers for call. The key piece of this holding is that the “random or sequential” phrase applies to both storing the telephone numbers and dialing the telephone numbers.  Otherwise, the Supreme Court reasoned, any phone capable of storing numbers (e.g., “virtually all modern cell phones”) would be subject to the TCPA’s onerous prior written consent requirements. Instead, unless the device has the capacity “to store . . . telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator” or to “produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator,” that device is not an ATDS and not subject to the strict prior written consent requirements of the TCPA.
Insights
Jan 21, 2021
FINRA Fines Cetera Firms Total Of $1,000,000 For Securities Transactions