David Swift has broad civil and criminal litigation experience, with an emphasis on complex business litigation, intellectual property, and criminal defense. Mr. Swift currently serves on the Judicial Appointments Committee of the Los Angeles County Bar Association, which is responsible for evaluating and rating candidates for judicial office. Mr. Swift also serves on the Litigation Section Executive Committee for the Los Angeles County Bar Association.
In 2009-2010, Mr. Swift served as the President of the Los Angeles County Bar Association Barristers, and from 2008-2010, Mr. Swift served on the Executive Committee and Board of Trustees for the Los Angeles County Bar Association.
Mr. Swift earned his J.D. from the University of Southern California School of Law, where he served as the President of the USC Public Interest Law Foundation, was a member of the USC Law Review and was elected to the Order of the Coif (top 10%). After law school, Mr. Swift served as a law clerk to the Honorable Cynthia Holcomb Hall in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Before joining KWIKA, Mr. Swift practiced civil litigation at the Los Angeles office of Munger Tolles & Olson.
Mr. Swift graduated from Pomona College with a B.A. in Politics, Philosophy and Economics. At Pomona, he served as the Associate Chair of the Pomona College Judicial Council and was a four-year member of the men’s varsity soccer team.
In 2010, 2011, and 2012, Mr. Swift was recognized as a “Rising Star” in Super Lawyers magazine—an honor awarded to the top 2.5% of lawyers in the Southern California area under 40 years of age.
In 2011, Mr. Swift was named to the New Leaders Council’s “40 Under 40,” a national award recognizing 40 progressive leaders under the age of 40.
Representative Cases:
In 2008 and 2009, Mr. Swift represented DocuLex Inc. and its officers in a copyright, trademark and breach of contract action in the Northern District of California. After creating and implementing a targeted discovery plan, Mr. Swift brought a motion for summary judgment, which the court granted. See ExperExchange Inc. v. DocuLex Inc., et al., 2009 WL 3837275 (N.D.Cal. 2009). The Court also awarded DocuLex over $635,000 in fees and costs as a prevailing defendant under the Copyright Act. See ExperExchange Inc. v. DocuLex Inc., et al., 2010 WL 1881484 (N.D.Cal. 2010).
From 2008 to 2012, Mr. Swift represented an individual charged with defrauding investors out of over $39 million. After considerable back and forth with the US Attorney’s Office, Mr. Swift was able to negotiate a satisfactory plea deal.
In 2011, Mr. Swift brought suit on behalf of the creator of a children’s brand against his brand management company for fraud and breach of fiduciary duty. The case settled on the eve of trial for a substantial amount.
Publications:
A State’s Power to Enter into a Consent Decree that Violates State Law Provisions: What ‘Findings’ of a Violation are Sufficient to Justify a Consent Decree that Trumps State Law? Texas Journal on Civil Liberties & Civil Rights (10 Tex. J. on C. L. & C. R. 37 (2004)).
