Hargrove & Associates has represented private clients, families, and business principals since 2003. We practice law as a discipline of judgment — not volume.
Hargrove & Associates was founded on a straightforward premise: that the practice of law, at its highest expression, is an act of trust between counsel and client. Since our founding in 2003, we have represented families navigating complex estates, principals structuring enterprises, and individuals requiring measured, confidential advocacy.
We are a firm of deliberate size. Our practice is not built on volume — it is built on relationships. Every client receives the direct attention of a partner, every matter receives the full weight of our collective experience.
Our offices in San Francisco serve principals across the West Coast and, increasingly, in Europe and the Pacific Rim. We do not advertise. New engagements arrive by referral — from existing clients, from counsel at other firms, and from the institutions that have come to rely on our discretion.
All initial inquiries to the firm — by telephone, by email, or through this site — are held in strict attorney-client confidence. We do not discuss representations, decline or accept engagements, or share the names of our clients, past or present.
We do not practice law for volume. We practice it for the few who require absolute discretion, uncompromising counsel, and an advocate who will not yield.
We offer counsel across a focused range of practice areas, selected for the depth they require and the clients they serve.
The passage of wealth between generations is among the most consequential legal events a family will face. We counsel high-net-worth individuals and families on comprehensive estate plans — from revocable trusts and testamentary instruments to tax-efficient transfer strategies and the governance of family assets.
Speak with an Attorney →From the structure of a new enterprise to the governance of an established one, our corporate practice serves principals who require counsel that understands both the legal and strategic dimensions of business. We have guided clients from founding through exit, across industries and jurisdictions.
Speak with an Attorney →Not every dispute belongs in a courtroom. But when litigation is necessary, it must be conducted with precision, preparation, and the resolve to see it through. Our litigation practice is built on thorough preparation, disciplined strategy, and experienced advocacy before state and federal courts.
Speak with an Attorney →Matters of family — dissolution, custody, prenuptial agreements, guardianship — require counsel who combines legal acuity with discretion and genuine care. We represent clients in complex family law proceedings with the sensitivity these matters demand and the firmness they sometimes require.
Speak with an Attorney →The matters below are described in general terms to preserve the confidentiality of the principals involved. Specific facts have been modified. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.
Counseled a four-generation West Coast family through a $180M succession event involving a closely-held real estate portfolio, a private foundation, and a complex prenuptial restructuring. The engagement spanned eighteen months and required coordination across three jurisdictions.
Outcome — Full transfer completed without litigation; family governance structures intact.
Advised the founding principals of a private equity vehicle through formation, fund documentation, and the negotiation of anchor LP commitments totaling $340M. Continuing role as outside counsel through deployment of the inaugural vintage.
Outcome — First close achieved on schedule; firm retained as institutional counsel.
Represented two beneficiaries in the removal of a corporate trustee whose administration of a $60M family trust had become adverse to the family's interests. Matter resolved through negotiated settlement after eight months of disciplined, deliberate pressure.
Outcome — Trustee removed; full accounting recovered; successor trustee installed.
Structured a private holding company across U.S. and European jurisdictions for a family principal entering a regulated industry. The engagement required novel tax structuring and the assembly of regulatory counsel across two continents.
Outcome — Entity formed and operational within ninety days; ongoing engagement as primary counsel.
Advised the principal in a complex divorce involving multiple family enterprises, a substantial art and collectibles portfolio, and minor children. Matter resolved through private mediation, without public filing or media exposure.
Outcome — Full agreement reached; no public filing; principal retained all operational interests.
Defended a closely-held company in federal court against allegations of breach of a long-term supply contract. A three-week bench trial followed eighteen months of preparation and depositions across four states.
Outcome — Judgment for the defense on all counts.
A four-generation succession event, eighteen months in counsel, across three jurisdictions and four advisor disciplines.
The family had been a client of the firm since 2003 — when our founding partner first counseled the second generation through a routine restructuring of the family's California real estate holdings. Twenty-one years later, the patriarch, then in his eighties, requested a meeting to begin discussions of succession.
The complexity was not in the assets, although the assets were complex — a portfolio of commercial real estate held across two California counties, a private family foundation supporting medical research, and an operating company in a regulated industry. The complexity was in the structure of the family itself: four generations, fifteen living principals, two of whom had married into substantial enterprises of their own, and one of whom was the subject of an ongoing dispute the family had so far declined to discuss with counsel.
An estate of this kind has no single correct legal structure. It has only the structure the family is prepared to live within.
The question was not what the legal mechanism would be. It was how a family could remain a family across the discontinuity of succession.
We declined to draft a single document for the first ninety days of the engagement. That period was spent in conversation — with the patriarch, then with each adult member of the second and third generations individually, then with the family's existing fiduciaries and outside advisors. It was, in the literal sense, an audit of the family's governance.
What emerged from that audit was a recommendation that the succession not be executed as a single event. Three discrete restructurings — of the operating company, of the foundation, and of the family's primary trust instruments — would be undertaken in sequence, each with its own engagement letter, its own counsel team, and its own communication protocol to the broader family.
The unresolved family dispute — to which we had been alerted in those first conversations — was addressed in a separate, parallel engagement led by senior partner Diana Voss, conducted in confidence and resolved by negotiated agreement before the principal transfer instruments were executed.
At the end of eighteen months, the operating company had been transferred to the third generation under a tax-efficient structure that preserved the patriarch's voting interest through a designated period. The foundation had been recapitalized and its governance restructured to include a third-generation board member. The family's trust instruments had been substantially rewritten, with explicit provisions for the resolution of future disputes within the family rather than through litigation.
No filing was made in any court in connection with the engagement. No member of the family ceased speaking to another member of the family. The patriarch passed two years later. The family today remains intact.
No documents drafted. Conversations with the patriarch, the adult principals, and the family's existing fiduciary advisors. Mapping of family relationships, asset structure, and known sensitivities.
Substantial rewriting of the family trust instruments and recapitalization of the private foundation. Third-generation principals introduced to fiduciary roles for the first time.
Confidential resolution of the unresolved family dispute, conducted in parallel under separate engagement, led by Diana Voss. Resolved by negotiated agreement.
Tax-efficient transfer of the family operating company to the third generation, preserving the patriarch's voting interest through a designated period. Governance handoff complete.
The family has remained with the firm in the years since. Their counsel today is largely advisory — but the work of those eighteen months is, in our view, the work that mattered most.
Specific facts of this matter — including the identity of the family, the precise structure of the assets, and the nature of the parallel dispute — have been altered to preserve the confidentiality of the principals. The general shape of the engagement, and its outcome, are as described. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.
Our practice is led by three attorneys, each of whom brings a distinct disposition and a focused area of judgment to the firm.
Yale Law School, J.D. 1999. Former clerk to the Honorable Diane P. Wood, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Practice concentrates on estate planning, wealth transfer, and family governance for high-net-worth principals.
Yale Law School, J.D. 1999 · Princeton University, A.B. in History, summa cum laude, 1995 · Federal clerkship, Hon. Diane P. Wood (7th Cir.), 1999–2000
Northern California Super Lawyers®, 2019–2024 · AV Preeminent®, Martindale-Hubbell · Best Lawyers in America, Trusts & Estates, 2020–2025 · Fellow, American College of Trust and Estate Counsel
"The Discretionary Trust in the Modern Family," ACTEC Journal, 2021 · "Family Governance After the Founder," Trusts & Estates, 2023
Harvard Law School, J.D. 2004. Practice concentrates on corporate counsel, business formation, and capital transactions. Annual faculty member, Practising Law Institute, on closely-held company governance.
Harvard Law School, J.D., magna cum laude, 2004 · The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, B.S. in Economics, summa cum laude, 2001
Northern California Super Lawyers®, 2019–2024 · Chambers USA, Corporate / M&A · Best Lawyers in America, Corporate Law, 2022–2025
Practising Law Institute — Faculty, "Closely-Held Company Governance," annually since 2018 · ABA Business Law Section, Annual Meeting, 2022 & 2024
Georgetown University Law Center, J.D. 2016. Former Assistant District Attorney, San Francisco County. Practice concentrates on civil litigation, dispute resolution, and federal court advocacy.
Georgetown University Law Center, J.D., cum laude, 2016 · Stanford University, B.A. in Political Science, with honors, 2013 · Editor, Georgetown Law Journal
Assistant District Attorney, San Francisco County, 2016–2020 — first chair on more than two dozen felony trials prior to entering private practice
Northern California Super Lawyers® Rising Star, 2022–2024 · ABA Section of Litigation, Trial Practice Committee
Hargrove and his team are the only counsel I have ever retained who understood my matter before I had finished describing it. They speak the language of judgment — not the language of legal services.
In a practice area saturated with marketing, this firm distinguishes itself by the simple fact that they say less and accomplish more. They are the lawyers other lawyers call.
I have worked with national firms of thousands of attorneys, and I have worked with sole practitioners. The institutional discipline of Hargrove & Associates, in a firm of this size, is genuinely unusual. It is also, in my experience, the only thing that matters.
The path from initial contact to active representation, set forth in plain terms.
Every engagement begins with a brief, confidential inquiry — by telephone, by email, or through the form on this site. We will acknowledge receipt within one business day, conduct a preliminary conflicts check, and confirm whether the matter is one we are positioned to consider.
Where the matter and the firm are a fit, we will schedule a private consultation — typically sixty to ninety minutes, conducted in our offices or by private video conference. The consultation is an opportunity for us to understand your matter in depth, and for you to understand the firm in the same. There is no commitment on either side at this stage.
Should both parties wish to proceed, we will issue a written engagement letter setting out the scope of representation, the team of attorneys assigned to your matter, the fee structure proposed, and the protocols of communication and confidentiality that will govern the engagement. We do not begin substantive work until the engagement letter is executed.
During active representation, you will have direct and personal access to the partner leading your matter. Regular communication — by the cadence appropriate to the engagement — is the standard. Significant developments are conveyed without delay. Routine status communications are provided on a schedule we agree upon at the outset.
The conclusion of a discrete matter is not, in our practice, the conclusion of the relationship. Many of our engagements evolve into ongoing advisory relationships — periodic counsel, annual reviews of family structures, availability as questions arise. The firm's oldest client relationships are measured in decades.
How we structure the commercial side of representation, set out plainly.
The firm's fee structures are designed to align with the matter, not with the inquiry. Below, the four arrangements under which we accept engagements, and the matters for which each is appropriate. Specific rates and project fees are discussed in the initial consultation and confirmed in writing within the engagement letter.
For matters of indeterminate scope, active litigation, and complex transactional work that resists fixed pricing. The firm bills against an advance retainer at hourly rates set out in the engagement letter. Statements are issued monthly, in detail, and reviewed personally by the engagement partner before delivery.
Litigation, contested trust matters, complex restructurings
For discrete transactional matters with defined parameters — estate plans, business formations, single-event restructurings. Fees are quoted as a project total prior to engagement, payable on a schedule keyed to milestones. Where scope shifts materially during the engagement, fees are renegotiated openly.
Estate plan drafting, business formations, defined transactional work
For ongoing advisory relationships — family enterprises, principals with active interests across multiple jurisdictions, and clients whose counsel needs are continuous rather than discrete. The firm bills a monthly retainer covering a defined scope of advisory work, with substantive engagements billed separately under arrangements appropriate to each.
Ongoing family counsel, continuing principal advisory
For matters whose contours do not fit cleanly within any single framework. We combine arrangements as the matter requires — for example, a project-scoped initial structuring followed by retainer-based ongoing counsel, or hourly work transitioning to a fixed scope as the matter resolves. The structure is set out plainly in the engagement letter at the outset.
Complex multi-stage engagements, generational transitions
The firm does not engage in discounting, contingency representation, or arms-length retainer arrangements designed to secure a client without active engagement. Our fees are scoped to reflect the work the matter actually requires — measured against rates customary for boutique private client practices of comparable depth and discipline.
Billing statements are issued monthly during active matters and are reviewed personally by the engagement partner before delivery to the client. We welcome the opportunity to discuss fees openly at any point during a representation, and to revisit arrangements as the contours of a matter evolve.
Specific rates and project fees are discussed in the initial consultation.
Request a ConsultationConsidered writing on private client legal matters, prepared by attorneys of the firm. Distributed by quiet subscription; published here in selection.
The discretionary trust remains among the most flexible — and most misunderstood — instruments in modern wealth transfer planning. This essay examines its proper use within the modern family enterprise, with attention to fiduciary structure, beneficiary expectations, and the practical limits of trustee discretion.
Family enterprises rarely fail in their first generation. They fail — when they fail — in the transition between the founder and the successors. This essay considers the governance structures that distinguish enterprises that survive that transition from those that do not.
An appellate brief is not a longer trial brief. It is a different instrument, written for a different reader, in a different rhetorical register. This essay offers practical observations on the craft of writing for the federal appellate bench.
Responses to the questions we are asked most often by prospective clients, set out in the firm's own voice.
A consultation begins with a brief written or telephoned inquiry — there is a form on this site, or you may write to us directly at the address below. We will respond within one business day to confirm receipt, conduct a preliminary conflicts check, and propose a time for a more substantive conversation. The initial consultation is conducted by a partner of the firm and is held in strict attorney-client confidence. There is no fee for the initial consultation and no commitment on either side.
Our engagements are structured in whichever arrangement most appropriately fits the matter — hourly billing against a retainer, project-scoped fees for transactional work, or monthly retainers for ongoing advisory relationships. Where possible, we prefer to scope engagements in a manner that gives the client visibility into total cost. Detailed monthly statements are issued in every engagement, and we are happy to discuss our rates frankly during the initial consultation. The firm does not take cases on contingency.
Each engagement is led by a partner of the firm — the partner whose practice area and disposition most appropriately fit the matter. That partner is your direct point of contact and remains so throughout the engagement. For matters that touch multiple practice areas, the lead partner draws on the collective experience of the firm without your communication channels becoming complicated. In practice: you are represented by one attorney, supported by all of them.
Confidentiality is the foundation of our practice — not a feature of it. We do not publicly identify our clients. We do not discuss past or present representations. We decline to confirm or deny engagements when asked by parties outside the matter. All initial inquiries are held in attorney-client confidence from the moment of first contact. Within the firm, information about a matter is shared only with attorneys whose work on that matter requires it. Our staff is bound by the same protocols.
Every prospective engagement is subject to a formal conflicts check against our existing and prior client roster before any substantive consultation. Where a conflict exists, we will say so plainly and, where appropriate, suggest counsel at another firm whom we hold in high regard. In the rare circumstance in which a waivable conflict arises during a representation, we will raise it with the client immediately and in writing.
Our attorneys are admitted to the California Bar and to the federal courts of the Northern and Eastern Districts of California. For matters with multi-jurisdictional dimensions, we maintain working relationships with carefully selected firms in New York, London, Geneva, and Singapore, and we routinely lead engagements that coordinate across these advisors. We are well-positioned to serve principals whose interests extend beyond California — and increasingly, that describes most of our clientele.
Two things, principally. The first is partner attention: at a firm of our size, the partner you meet at the consultation is the partner who will lead your matter, draft the consequential documents, and stand before the court when that becomes necessary. The second is institutional continuity: your relationship is with the firm and with the individuals who comprise it, not with a rotating set of associates whose names change between engagements. These attributes matter most in matters that span years or generations — which describes the great majority of the work we do.
We do not handle criminal defense, personal injury, immigration, or bankruptcy matters. We do not represent parties whose interests are adverse to existing clients of the firm. We do not advertise on television, radio, or paid digital channels. We do not solicit clients directly. And we do not accept engagements that, in our judgment, we are not the right firm to handle — in those instances, we are pleased to refer prospective clients to counsel at firms we respect.
If your question is not addressed here, we welcome the opportunity to answer it directly.
Request a ConsultationInitial consultations are conducted by appointment and in strict confidence. Please complete the inquiry form and a member of our team will be in contact within one business day to confirm availability and discuss the nature of your matter.
