We believe in personal service
At the Law Offices of Alexander M. Schack, we bring personal service to every case, however big or small. Over the years, we’ve successfully represented consumers and small to mid-size businesses in a variety of cases and areas, including antitrust, consumer protection, business litigation, mass actions and more. From a California class action on behalf of smokeless tobacco users, to a nationwide class action on behalf of convenience store franchisees, our firm’s cases are diverse and often groundbreaking.
We understand what it takes to get results for our clients. Our history of success involves eight-figure settlements in complex areas of law, including antitrust price-fixing, pyramid schemes, and franchise disputes. We also understand that the best approach to any case is one that involves the client. At the Law Offices of Alexander M. Schack, we believe in delivering the highest level of legal services in a way that places the client relationship first. We will work with you to understand the issues of your case, simplify the complex issues, and develop a litigation plan that involves you, the client.
ALEXANDER M. SCHACK
Mr. Schack received a degree in Economics from Rutgers College in 1978. In December of 1981, he received his Juris Doctorate from the University of San Diego School of Law (State Bar No. 99126). In 1985 he passed the California CPA exam (although he is not a C.P.A.) and received an LL.M in Taxation from the University of San Diego School of Law. He was employed by the former “big six” accounting firms of Arthur Andersen and Company (Los Angeles) and KPMG Peat Marwick (San Diego) for approximately four years. His client list included MGM, Wickes Furniture, Circus Circus, S.E. Rykoff, Ernest Borgnine, Santa Catalina Island Co., San Diego Hall of Champions, National Pen, etc.
Since 1988, Mr. Schack has represented both consumers and businesses in numerous complex litigation lawsuits. He has orally argued before the Fourth Appellate District and Second Appellate District on at least five separate occasions. In one case in particular, the Fourth Appellate District - Division One, set aside approximately two hours for appellate discussion to analyze the antitrust jurisdiction of a Superior Court to hear an action under the Cartwright Act for price fixing against the cellular telephone carriers in light of the jurisdiction of the California Public Utilities Commission to approve cellular telephone rates. That appellate discussion resulted in the published opinion of Cellular Plus v. Superior Court, 14 Cal.App.4th 1224 (cert.denied July 1, 1993). This opinion has twice been the subject of articles in Competition - the Journal of the Antitrust and Trade Regulation Section of the State Bar of California. He also is a former adjunct professor at the University of San Diego.