Dane P. Shikman

Dane P. Shikman

Dane P. Shikman is an attorney in the San Francisco office of Munger, Tolles & Olson.

Mr. Shikman maintains a diverse practice focusing on complex civil litigation, jury trials, and appeals, across numerous subject areas including antitrust, technology, and employment law.  He has argued and won favorable results for clients in state and federal trial courts, and represents clients on appeal in high stakes matters.  In addition to litigation, Mr. Shikman’s experience includes government investigations of major technology companies, and he advises clients on regulatory and employment matters.   

Mr. Shikman’s pro bono practice is very important to him. He has handled impact litigation matters, as well as individual representations ranging from post-conviction relief, immigration appeals, death penalty claims, factual innocence litigation, guardianship proceedings, and litigation involving artist rights.  He has represented pro bono clients in the U.S. Supreme Court on multiple occasions, including at the merits and certiorari stages, and has argued and prevailed in a precedent-setting decision in the California Supreme Court.

Mr. Shikman attended The George Washington University Law School, where he served as the editor-in-chief of The George Washington Law Review, and interned for the U.S. Department of Justice, and the New York City Law Department. Prior to that, he obtained his B.S. in Foreign Policy from the School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University, focusing on international politics. Before joining the firm, Mr. Shikman clerked for Judge David M. Ebel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.  

Mr. Shikman is a proud native of San Francisco, where he and his wife Jessi, and dog Lincoln, live today.

Experience

Key Representations

  • Obtained favorable result for Abbott Labs subsidiary Alere in commercial dispute involving contract, patent, and trade secret issues 
  • Won complete verdict for Wells Fargo as trial counsel in case involving allegations of improperly phone recording practices
  • Represented the University of California as trial counsel in whistleblower retaliation case
  • Represented Lyft in numerous appellate matters in federal and California state courts, and obtained favorable results. 
  • Represents Google in antitrust MDL in which plaintiffs allege monopolization of app distribution on Android phones 
     

Pro Bono

Pro Bono

  • Argued and obtained precedent-setting decision in California Supreme Court (People v. Vivar) on standard for vacating non-citizens’ convictions based on misunderstanding of immigration effects
  • Prevailed in obtaining declaration of factual innocence in case involving man who was wrongfully imprisoned for 32 years and released
  • Represented petitioner in U.S. Supreme Court (Mitchell v. Wisconsin) in merits proceedings, on the question whether the warrant requirement applies to blood draws of unconscious drivers
  • Represented death row inmate on appeal and before the U.S. Supreme Court (Johnson v. Precythe) in certiorari proceedings.
  • Represented numerous immigrants in agency and federal appellate proceedings to obtain asylum or torture-convention relief, as well as immigrant families separated at the U.S.-Mexico border in administrative proceedings for damages.
     

Experience

Key Representations

  • Obtained favorable result for Abbott Labs subsidiary Alere in commercial dispute involving contract, patent, and trade secret issues 
  • Won complete verdict for Wells Fargo as trial counsel in case involving allegations of improperly phone recording practices
  • Represented the University of California as trial counsel in whistleblower retaliation case
  • Represented Lyft in numerous appellate matters in federal and California state courts, and obtained favorable results. 
  • Represents Google in antitrust MDL in which plaintiffs allege monopolization of app distribution on Android phones 
     

Pro Bono

Pro Bono

  • Argued and obtained precedent-setting decision in California Supreme Court (People v. Vivar) on standard for vacating non-citizens’ convictions based on misunderstanding of immigration effects
  • Prevailed in obtaining declaration of factual innocence in case involving man who was wrongfully imprisoned for 32 years and released
  • Represented petitioner in U.S. Supreme Court (Mitchell v. Wisconsin) in merits proceedings, on the question whether the warrant requirement applies to blood draws of unconscious drivers
  • Represented death row inmate on appeal and before the U.S. Supreme Court (Johnson v. Precythe) in certiorari proceedings.
  • Represented numerous immigrants in agency and federal appellate proceedings to obtain asylum or torture-convention relief, as well as immigrant families separated at the U.S.-Mexico border in administrative proceedings for damages.