Ochrach Law Firm

Mr. Ochrach represented a local Sacramento television station in a lawsuit for breach of an option agreement to sell the TV station to a national television network. The defendant was a multi-billion-dollar company, and it hired one of the largest law firms in the country to fight the case. The defendant fought every issue like it was life or death. The defendant made relatively small settlement offers and promised to "crush" the local TV station.

The turning point came when Mr. Ochrach took the deposition of the CEO and founder of the national television network. The CEO was defended in his deposition by four lawyers – all from law schools like Harvard who objected to almost every question. They made this a very difficult deposition. Yet, Mr. Ochrach persisted and eventually cornered the CEO into giving testimony that revealed the truth – and was devastating to the defendant's defense of the case.

Within months of taking these depositions, defense counsel's negotiating position changed dramatically. The defendant was offering to pay twice what it had previously offered. Mr. Ochrach settled the case obtaining $21 million from the defendant.

July 5, 2025 – In a major verdict impacting the regional development and legal communities, a Placer County jury has awarded nearly $11 million in damages against prominent real estate developer Christopher Steele and Sacramento attorney Andrew Sackheim, finding them liable for fraud and breach of fiduciary duty.

The plaintiffs, Donyne Ranch LLC and East Lincoln Associates, LLC, alleged that Steele—who owns seven golf courses across the region—and Sackheim secretly negotiated a sale of their 140-acre development property in Placer County to Elliott Homes in 2012 for $6.6 million, far below market value – so the defendants could take $3 million in profits for themselves while causing the Plaintiffs to lose over $10 million. The jury found that the pair concealed the deal for nearly six years while assuring Donyne Ranch that development was proceeding as planned.

"This case was about a betrayal of trust at the highest level of real estate development partnerships," said Jeff Ochrach, trial counsel for the plaintiffs. "Mr. Steele and Mr. Sackheim were entrusted to develop this property to maximize its value for all stakeholders. Instead, they secretly sold it at a bottom-of-the-market price, costing our clients more than $10 million."

Trial evidence showed that Donyne Ranch contributed the 140 acres—then valued over $20 million—to the partnership, while Steele and Sackheim were to contribute their expertise and manage entitlements to significantly increase the land's value before any sale. The jury determined that had the property been entitled and developed as planned, its value would have been over $12 million.

Christopher Steele is known in the Sacramento and Placer business community as a developer and golf course owner with decades of high-profile projects, while Andrew Sackheim has been a real estate attorney advising and partnering in development transactions.

"This verdict confirms that fiduciaries cannot secretly enrich themselves at the expense of their partners," said Mr. Ochrach.

Our client, Cal, owned an oil change business which was a franchisee of a major oil company. Under the franchise agreement, Cal had the right to grow his company by opening more and more stores, and then to sell the whole business back to the franchisor (the major oil company). The language of the franchise agreement in this regards was ambiguous and certainly susceptible of different meanings. The oil company claimed that Cal was limited in the number of stores he could open and sell back. The reason the interpretation of the contract was so important is that, if our client was correct, the oil company would owe many millions of dollars.

The entire case hinged on the meaning of the word "or." That is, does the word "or" mean "and/or" or does it have only the disjunctive meaning of "or."

Litigation was hard-fought. The oil company hired one of the country's largest law firms, who fought tooth and nail on every issue. We took depositions around the country, seeking to prove that the oil company executives had the same understanding of the contract that Cal did. Through these depositions — using key correspondence and notes written by the oil company executives — we were able to make a very good case that the word "or" as used in the parties' contract meant "and/or," which meant Cal could open many stores and then sell them all back to the company under a contractual formula that made such a transaction very valuable for our client.

Before trial, the major oil company paid my client $4 million to settle.

After a three week trial, a Sacramento County jury found Westlake Financial Services, a major Los Angeles car loan company, guilty of fraudulent lending practices, and awarded a Sacramento Dollar Rent a Car franchise over $400,000 in damages plus $2.7 million in punitive damages. "The jury found that Westlake induced Dollar to enter into contracts by making false representations, overcharged interest, assessed unwarranted late charges, and failed to give credit for many monthly payments," said Dollar's attorney, Jeffrey H. Ochrach of Roseville.

The litigation stemmed from breaches of agreements under which Dollar bought and financed fleets of rental cars with Westlake. Under their contracts with Dollar, Westlake was required to buy back most of these cars, thereby paying off the balance on the loan. But Westlake refused to honor its contracts and then sued Dollar on the loans Westlake failed to pay off. This dispute took five years to get to trial. At trial, Westlake introduced many documents that Dollar asserted were highly questionable: "After five years of litigation, Westlake 'found' invoices, checks and other documents it somehow couldn't find when we asked for them before trial. These documents were supposed to help their case, but I think the jury recognized that Westlake fabricated these documents during trial and it cemented the notion that these guys were untrustworthy," said Mr. Ochrach.

"One of the things that makes this case so satisfying is that Westlake sued Dollar for about $1 million, claiming enormous amounts of interest, late fees of $140,000 and denying receipt of hundreds of thousands of dollars in payments. But the jury waded through all of the accounting evidence and determined that Dollar had fully paid these loans – in fact, Dollar overpaid." Mr. Ochrach commented, "I explained to the jury that the only way to stop this kind of fraud is to hit Westlake with a verdict that catches the attention of Westlake's shareholders and the public." The jury's message was loud and clear.

A former politician who resumed practicing law after retiring from the legislature sued Mr. Ochrach's client, Marty, for unpaid legal fees. On behalf of his client, Mr. Ochrach countersued the lawyer for legal malpractice. Why? The lawyer represented Marty in his corporate matters, and the lawyer failed to properly advise Marty about a contract with one of his employees. The employee sued Marty claiming he was a 50% partner entitled to half of the profits of the company, and the employee won. Marty claimed the employee was not a partner and, instead, was given a 10% profit sharing in the company. The reason the employee won, according to Mr. Ochrach, was that the lawyer failed to properly document the relationship with the employee.

Just before trial, Mr. Ochrach convinced the court to throw out the lawyer's lawsuit against Marty. Then, the parties went to trial over Marty's lawsuit for legal malpractice. The highlight of the trial was Mr. Ochrach's cross-examination of the lawyer. Mr. Ochrach was able to show to the jury how simple it would have been for a competent lawyer to draft a simple contract that would have laid out the terms of the employee's compensation, which would have defeated the employee's claim that he was owed a percentage of profits of the company.

At the conclusion of trial, the jury awarded Mr. Ochrach's client $2.8 million.

Mr. Ochrach's client partnered with a real estate broker to develop and lease commercial space. The partner absconded with profits and then sued for monies he claimed the client had taken. At trial, Mr. Ochrach destroyed the broker's credibility, defeated the broker's claims, and won $2.4 million for his client.

The plaintiff alleged a conspiracy to defraud her arising from transactions involving the sale of a ranch and Percheron horses. At trial, the plaintiff called defendant's alleged co-conspirator to testify against Mr. Ochrach's client. However, Mr. Ochrach had thoroughly investigated this witness and the plaintiff and, on cross-examination, impeached the witnesses almost every minute. In fact, after about 30 minutes of cross-examination, the alleged co-conspirator — who was really a co-conspirator with the plaintiff — began pleading the 5th Amendment privilege against self-incrimination to every question. Mr. Ochrach had destroyed his credibility.

In the end, the judge entered a decision exonerating Mr. Ochrach's client of any wrongdoing — a complete defense victory.

Shirley was married to her husband for 60 years before he passed away. They owned their own business and had been pretty successful. Because her husband handled all of the finances in their family, when her husband died, Shirley relied on her adult-son, Jay, to keep track of her finances. That was a big mistake.

More than a decade later, Shirley passed away. During the probate of her estate, Shirley's daughter, Connie, became suspicious of Jay because he refused to allow them to sell what Jay claimed was Shirley's sole asset, her home. Connie hired our firm to move things forward. However, during his investigation, we discovered that Jay appeared to have been embezzling from his mother. Using written discovery and then taking Jay's deposition (and also his accountant's deposition), we established that Jay had stolen over $600,000 from his mother. In fact, during her last years, Shirley was living meagerly on only her social security checks — not knowing that she had hundreds of thousands more. Jay hid this money from her and then embezzled it.

The old saying, "Oh what a tangled web we weave . . . " was never so apropos. When questioned, Jay first said that he never took any of his mother's money. Then, he said she loaned him $600,000. Then, Jay said he paid back his mother. However, we scoured Shirley's bank records and Jay's bank records and proved that Jay never paid any money to his mother. This led Jay to say that, "well, I paid back my mom by investing the money — $600,000 — for her." But, our investigation proved that Jay invested the money took from his mother into his own investment accounts, not accounts for Shirley. Jay just could not contrive lies that could explain his previous lies.

On the eve of a court hearing to award our client damages caused by Jay's embezzlement from his mother, we settled the case for a payment of all of the money Jay stole, punitive-type damages of $600,000, plus attorneys' fees incurred by our client prosecuting the case — for a total payment from Jay of $1.65 million.

Mr. Ochrach's client, Kip, entered a contract to buy a business in Woodland for about $500,000. Just before the sale closed, the seller reneged. Mr. Ochrach sued the seller for breach of the contract.

At trial, the seller testified that he was justified in backing out of the contract because of Kip's failure to satisfy all of the contract terms. He also called an expert to testify that Kip did not suffer any damages from the seller cancelling the contract. Mr. Ochrach impeached the seller's testimony proving that he breached the contract – and that the seller believed "anyone can weasel out of a contract." Mr. Ochrach discredited the seller's expert witness to such an extent that, in the end, the seller's expert agreed that Kip suffered $1.5 million in damages.

The jury awarded Kip every penny of damages – the full $1.5 million.

My clients, John and Val, are successful business owners and live in an elegant home in Granite Bay. Their passion is roses — all kinds of roses and roses from all over the world. Their landscaping is legendary in the Sacramento area for its uniqueness and beauty. In the middle of it all lies their 750 picture-perfect rose bushes. While their landscaping crew of four men work full time maintaining the gardens, John and Val hired a company to spray their gardens with pesticides. Instead, the company used a different chemical, apparently a herbicide, which chemically burned the roses and devastated the gardens John & Val had built and tended for over twenty years. Though seemingly indisputable, the company denied any liability and fought the litigation with every penny their insurance company had. The company pointed the finger of blame at its chemical supplier, at John & Val, and at their gardeners. The case went to trial in Placer County.

We knew the biggest hurdle would be convincing a jury of 12 people that my clients should be awarded $1 million to replace their damaged gardens. After all, not too many people can imagine spending that much on their gardens.

The Defendant called eight (8) expert witnesses to support its claim that someone other than them caused all the damage to the gardens. Our job was to discredit all of the experts. We cross-examined their chemicals expert, roses expert, soils expert and all the rest. One by one, we proved that the experts were — either intentionally or because of lack of knowledge — wrongly blaming others for the damage caused by the company.

In the end, we asked the jury to award $1 million to replace the damaged rose garden and the hundreds of mature trees, bushes and other plants. The jury awarded us not only all of the cost of replacing the damaged landscaping, but they also awarded $400,000 for pain and suffering caused by the event. After the jury verdict was read and the case was over, many of the jurors hugged my clients and wished them well. This trial was a complete vindication for my clients.

This business fraud case involved deceptive practices that caused substantial financial harm to our client's business operations.

Mr. Ochrach methodically presented evidence of the fraudulent conduct, building a compelling case that demonstrated the defendant's liability.

The jury returned a verdict of $1.25 million in favor of our client, providing justice and compensation for the fraud.

For thirty years, our client, Al, was a partner with the Defendants in an engineering firm and commercial real estate business. When he was 75 years old, Parkinson's disease and dementia forced Al to stop working. As a result, Defendants took over complete control of the operations of the partnerships, including all of the books and records. At that point, Al's only information about the businesses came from statements made by his partners (in conversations, emails and letters) and annual written financial reports Defendants prepared and sent to Al.

Once Al was unable to work, Defendants engaged in a 10-year pattern of fraud and embezzlement, taking over $500,000 in monies belonging to Al. When Al's daughter discovered in 2014 that Defendants had been defrauding and embezzling from her dad, she hired us to get justice.

The case was litigated for years, with Defendants fighting fiercely at every stage. This case presented many hurdles, but the most daunting was that our client, Al, could not testify at trial because of his dementia. That meant the Defendants could and did fabricate the most convincing story they could create, knowing that Al was not able to rebut their testimony. Our only chance of success was to prove through tough cross-examination that the Defendants were testifying falsely.

And, we did that very well. After a two-week trial, the jury unanimously found the Defendants liable for fraud, embezzlement and financial elder abuse, awarding full damages to Al — plus $400,000 in punitive damages. On top of that, the court awarded Al attorneys' fees he spent proving his case — for a total judgment of $1.2 million.

Mr. Ochrach has extensive trial experience and an unparalleled record of victories. He has won 49 of 53 trials, or 92%. On average, these have been 2-3 week long trials, and his longest trial lasted almost 2 months.

Litigation

Mr. Ochrach has litigated and prevailed on behalf of plaintiffs and defendants in sophisticated business disputes in federal and state courts throughout California and in a wide array of arbitration forums. Trials have become rare in the era of expensive litigation; yet, Mr. Ochrach has tried 53 cases – and he has won 49 of those cases.

Litigation is really a two-part process. The first part is the pleadings and discovery stage, which we generally refer to as litigation. All litigation attorneys handle these areas of the case, though their skill levels vary across the spectrum. This stage involves drafting the complaint or response to the complaint and fighting attacks on the complaint. Discovery involves written questions to the other party and requesting, analyzing and organizing documents from the other side of the case. Some cases are won on summary judgment, and others are resolved through settlement.

The second stage of litigation is trial. Relatively few lawyers have very much experience trying cases, since somewhere around 95% of all cases are settled before trial. Trial work requires an entirely different skill set from general litigation. Many very smart lawyers who've studied at the elite law schools have little to no experience trying cases. Moreover, many brilliant attorneys who have off-the-charts IQs do not have the special talents needed to be successful in front of a jury at trial. That's why lawyers who haven't been able to settle their cases often refer their cases to a skilled trial lawyer to take over the case and try it.

Trial Attorney – Trial Lawyer

The trial stage of a case is the most difficult and requires a special skill set most attorneys simply don't have. Trial lawyers need to be incredibly organized and sticklers for details. These attributes are necessary because cross-examination is the most crucial part of trying cases, and only the most organized and efficient lawyers will be able to effectively impeach the adverse witnesses. Cross-examination demands thinking ahead five steps, similar to a chess game. Effective cross-examination walks the witness into traps that expose inconsistencies and outright lies. If the lawyer just jumps into the key questions without first building the foundation of questions that highlights and boxes in the damaging testimony, the cross-examination will fall flat. A good trial lawyer will let the witness dig a very deep hole of his false story before springing the key evidence or testimony that proves the lies.

Thus, trial work is as much art as it is the science of the law. Great trial attorneys have the artistry and intelligence, as well as an unyielding work ethic.

But there's more. The great trial lawyers are fantastic story tellers, and the relate to people instantly and well. Voir dire is the first stage of trial. It's the part of trial where the lawyers ask the jurors questions to determine whether they can be impartial. The best trial lawyers use this phase of trial to build a relationship with the jurors, to lower the jurors' natural distrust of the lawyers, and to establish credibility with the jury. An excellent trial lawyer will use void dire to sway the jury to lean his way before the jury ever hears a single witness.

Finally, trial attorneys must be honest with their juries. Don't overstate what the evidence will show; in fact, understate the significant evidence. This allows the jury to be a little surprised and more convinced when they hear and see the really good evidence. Also, by the end of the trial, the jury will have decided which attorney they trust more. The attorney who built this credibility with the jury will be the one to whom the jury looks to answer the difficult questions of the case.

Mr. Ochrach brings his own business and accounting perspective to business litigation and transactions. Having an accounting degree and experience as an auditor for one of the largest public accounting firms in the world, Mr. Ochrach has more than just 38 years legal experience in this arena – he has a practical and detailed understanding of the business world. This background illuminates financial and business issues other attorneys may not appreciate, provides unique insight, and optimizes his cross-examination of adverse witnesses and experts. All of this leads to a history of success and optimum results.

Our business law practice includes:

• Business Disputes, Litigation, Mediation and Trial
• Drafting and Negotiating Contracts
• Forming Corporations, LLCs, Partnerships and Sole Proprietorships
• Buying and Selling Businesses
• Nondisclosure and Confidentiality Agreements
• Real Estate Transactions and Leases
• Dissolution of Corporations, LLCs and Partnerships

For 38 years, our firm has been handling real estate litigation arising out of the sale of residential and commercial property, including breach of contract, fraud and realtor negligence. These cases require expertise in contracts law and, in most cases, an acute familiarity with finance and accounting concepts in dealing with damages claims. Mr. Ochrach's accounting background and trial experience provide great insight and knowledge. What does that mean for you? A higher likelihood of success. The following are typical subjects of real estate litigation:

Commercial Lease Disputes

• CAM, taxes, and rent disputes
• Termination clause disputes
• Early lease termination clause disputes
• Renewal clause disputes
• Tenant default disputes
• Landlord default disputes
• Improper use/non-permitted use disputes

Litigation Relating to Contracts for Sale of Real Property

• Fraud in the sale of property
• Nondisclosure of property defects or other important information
• Specific performance claims
• Broker commission disputes
• Breach of contract claims

Other Real Estate Matters

• Dissolution Proceedings Relating to Entities Owning Real Property
• Insurance Coverage Litigation
• Real Estate Brokerage Disputes
• Brokerage commissions disputes
• Licensing disputes
• Real Estate Partnership Disputes

Our legal malpractice practice includes:

• Cases where the attorney was negligent handling litigation and/or trial
• Cases where the attorney was negligent drafting legal documents
• Prosecuting cases against negligent lawyers
• Defending lawyers against legal malpractice actions