Goethals, Thomas | ADR Services, Inc.

Profile
Representative cases

Profile

Hon. Thomas M. Goethals (Ret.) brings a wealth of experience, insight, and professionalism to his work as a dispute resolution neutral. Over nearly five decades, he has served as a trial lawyer, criminal prosecutor, Superior Court judge, and appellate justice. Throughout his career, he has demonstrated a deep understanding of the complexities of both civil and criminal law, earning a reputation for fairness, integrity, and the ability to guide parties toward resolution. Justice Goethals has earned a reputation as a principled and pragmatic decision-maker. His extensive experience in trial litigation, combined with his judicial leadership, makes him uniquely qualified to assist parties in navigating mutually beneficial outcomes through mediation and arbitration.

Justice Goethals’ legal career began as a law clerk and civil litigator at Keesal, Young & Logan. He later joined the Orange County District Attorney’s Office, where he prosecuted a broad spectrum of criminal cases over the course of more than a decade. As a trial prosecutor, he became highly skilled in courtroom advocacy, frequently handling high-profile and high-stakes matters requiring sound judgment under intense scrutiny. His experience prosecuting and managing high-profile cases deepened his commitment to preserving the integrity of the legal system.

Seeking to expand his expertise, Justice Goethals entered civil litigation at Robinson & Robinson (now Robinson Calcagnie), where he represented plaintiffs in complex personal injury cases. This experience broadened his perspective on mediation and settlement dynamics, deepening his appreciation for the nuanced negotiations that lead to fair and efficient case resolutions. He later became a partner at the boutique firm Pohlson, Moorhead, and Goethals, where he handled both criminal and civil matters. During his 24 years as a trial attorney at the DA’s office and in private practice, he tried nearly 200 jury cases to verdict and mediated and arbitrated many others in the areas of personal injury, wrongful death, business disputes, probate, and professional liability.

In 2002, Justice Goethals was appointed to the Superior Court of California, where he presided over approximately 300 jury trials. His approach to the bench emphasized preparation, respect for the legal process, and the importance of helping parties reach a resolution that aligned with the evidence. His decisions often demonstrated a keen understanding of the challenges faced by both sides of a dispute, fostering an environment where disputes could be resolved efficiently and equitably.

In 2017, Governor Jerry Brown nominated Justice Goethals to the California Court of Appeal, where he authored more than 500 opinions addressing a wide array of civil and criminal matters. His expertise was recognized with the State Bar’s highest rating of “Exceptionally Well Qualified,” and his nomination was unanimously confirmed by the Commission on Judicial Appointments. His appellate tenure further sharpened his ability to analyze intricate legal issues and balance competing interests—an invaluable skillset in his mediation and arbitration practice.

Justice Goethals has received numerous accolades for his contributions to the legal field. His decisions in high-profile criminal cases have been the subject of editorials in The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, and Washington Post. He was named one of Orange County’s most influential people by the Orange County Register and Coast Magazine in 2015 and has been honored with the Justice of the Year award from the Hispanic Bar Association of Orange County and the Distinguished Orange County Alumnus Award from Loyola Law School.

Beyond the courtroom, Justice Goethals has a long history of mentorship and education. He served as an adjunct professor at Loyola Law School and Whittier Law School for over two decades, teaching trial advocacy and sharing practical insights with aspiring lawyers. He also instructed at the California District Attorneys Association’s Master Trial Advocacy College and the Orange County Bar Association’s College of Trial Advocacy. His passion for teaching and learning has fostered a deep understanding of people, which has enhanced his ability to connect with litigants and counsel.

Justice Goethals’ core values—respect for the legal process, faith in the justice system, preparation, and empathy, coupled with his extensive experience and ability to foster trust and cooperation—continue to guide his work in dispute resolution.

Dispute Resolution Philosophy

Justice Goethals’ extensive trial and appellate experience informs his approach to dispute resolution. He believes that successful mediation requires a foundation of trust, preparation, and empathy. He engages with parties early, ensuring that he understands their goals, concerns, and the strengths and weaknesses of their positions. He emphasizes listening and maintaining a neutral but supportive role, helping parties to see the potential benefits of settlement over prolonged litigation. His ability to break down complex issues and guide parties through impasses has led to numerous successful resolutions over his career.

Justice Goethals is acutely aware that litigation is often a stressful and corrosive experience for those involved. He approaches each case with the goal of reducing that burden, helping parties move forward with dignity and closure. When an impasse arises, he employs patience and creativity to identify paths toward resolution, often encouraging breaks and fresh perspectives. He is also adept at post-mediation follow-up, understanding that not all cases are ready to settle on the day of the mediation itself. His persistence and attention to detail frequently result in meaningful, lasting resolutions.

EDUCATION

Loyola Law School, Juris Doctor, Dean’s List, 1977
Santa Clara University, Bachelor of Arts in History, cum laude, 1974

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE

Justice, California Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division Three, 2017-2025

Authored over 500 judicial opinions on complex civil and criminal issues.
Rated “Exceptionally Well Qualified” by the State Bar Evaluation Committee.
Unanimously confirmed by the Commission on Judicial Appointments.

Judge, Superior Court of California, 2002-2017

Presided over approximately 300 jury trials across civil and criminal matters.

Partner, Pohlson, Moorhead and Goethals, 1990-2002

Litigated both civil and criminal cases to verdict.

Deputy District Attorney, Orange County, 1978-1990

Prosecuted a wide range of criminal cases in Orange County.

Civil Litigator, Robinson and Robinson (Now Robinson Calcagnie), 1984

Law Clerk and Associate, Keesal, Young & Logan, 1976-1978

TEACHING EXPERIENCE

Adjunct Professor, Loyola Law School, 1998-2018
Adjunct Professor, Whittier Law School, 2010-2019
Instructor, Center for Judicial Education and Research (CJER), 2008-2016
Instructor, California District Attorneys Association, Master Trial Advocacy College, 1988-1989
Instructor, Orange County Bar Association, College of Trial Advocacy, 1982-1989

PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS

Gray Inn of Court – Master Member, 2003-2018
Board of Directors, Orange County Bar Association, 2000-2002
Orange County Superior Court Committees: Finance Committee, Security Committee, Grand Jury Committee (Chair)

AWARDS & RECOGNITION

Orange County’s 100 Most Influential People, Orange County Register, 2015
Orange County’s 50 Most Influential People, Coast Magazine, 2015
Justice of the Year, Hispanic Bar Association of Orange County, 2018
Distinguished Orange County Alumnus Award, Loyola Law School, 2019

MEDIA MENTIONS

Los Angeles Times editorial: “Stand Up for the Judge” (March 14, 2015)
New York Times editorial: “Dishonest Prosecutors, Lots of Them” (September 30, 2015)
Los Angeles Times editorial: “Schemes in the O.C. Jailhouse” (December 2, 2015)

Representative Cases

Appellate

During more than seven years of service as an Associate Justice of the California Court of Appeal, Justice Goethals was a panel member on well over one thousand appellate cases involving a wide range of civil and criminal issues. He authored the court’s opinion in more than five hundred of those cases. Following is a sampling of his published opinions.

Business and Contracts

Varney v. Avon Plastics Inc. (2021); 61 Cal. App. 5th 222.
Plaintiff filed a complaint in which he alleged fraud and the unauthorized commercial use of his name or likeness in violation of Civil Code section 3344. Defendant served a settlement offer on plaintiff pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 998. Before Plaintiff responded to that offer, Defendant served a second settlement offer. Before he formally responded to the first settlement offer, which was for a figure greater than that contained in the later offer, Plaintiff accepted the second offer. The new offer included a stipulation that Defendant would be considered the prevailing party for purposes of any award of attorneys’ fees and costs. Defendant later moved to recover attorneys’ fees and costs based on Civil Code section 3344’s fee shifting provision and its unaccepted Code of Civil Procedure section 998 offer. That motion was denied in the trial court. Justice Goethals wrote the court’s published opinion which affirmed the trial court’s ruling.

Construction

Collins v. Diamond Generating Corp. (2025); (Official citation pending).
Defendants operated a large power plant in Palm Springs. While performing a complex annual maintenance procedure, an employee was killed. The accident resulted in the filing of a wrongful death claim against defendants. A jury awarded the plaintiff more than $100 million after the trial court declined to give instructions on both the Privette doctrine (Privette v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 689) and its exceptions. Justice Goethals wrote the court’s published opinion reversing the judgment and remanded the case for a retrial with appropriate instructions. A defense motion to dismiss the case after trial was also denied.

Employment

Collins v. Diamond Generating Corp. (2025); (Official citation pending).
Defendants operated a large power plant in Palm Springs. While performing a complex annual maintenance procedure, an employee was killed. The accident resulted in the filing of a wrongful death claim against defendants. A jury awarded the plaintiff more than $100 million after the trial court declined to give instructions on both the Privette doctrine (Privette v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 689) and its exceptions. Justice Goethals wrote the court’s published opinion reversing the judgment and remanded the case for a retrial with appropriate instructions. A defense motion to dismiss the case after trial was also denied.

Ethics and Professionalism

Moore v. Superior Court (2020); 57 Cal. App.5th 441.
While representing a client at a mandatory settlement conference, Plaintiff Moore yelled at the other participants, including the temporary judge, and refused to engage in settlement discussions. He later acknowledged that his conduct was the result of a tactical decision he had made before the MSC began. The trial court found Plaintiff in contempt, and he appealed. Justice Goethals wrote the court’s published opinion in which one of the trial court’s contempt citations was affirmed.

Fee Disputes

Varney v. Avon Plastics Inc. (2021); 61 Cal. App. 5th 222.
Plaintiff filed a complaint in which he alleged fraud and the unauthorized commercial use of his name or likeness in violation of Civil Code section 3344. Defendant served a settlement offer on plaintiff pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 998. Before Plaintiff responded to that offer, Defendant served a second settlement offer. Before he formally responded to the first settlement offer, which was for a figure greater than that contained in the later offer, Plaintiff accepted the second offer. The new offer included a stipulation that Defendant would be considered the prevailing party for purposes of any award of attorneys’ fees and costs. Defendant later moved to recover attorneys’ fees and costs based on Civil Code section 3344’s fee shifting provision and its unaccepted Code of Civil Procedure section 998 offer. That motion was denied in the trial court. Justice Goethals wrote the court’s published opinion which affirmed the trial court’s ruling.

Insurance Coverage and Bad Faith

PacifiCare Life and Health Insurance v. Jones (2018); 27 Cal. App.5th 391.
The case involved a long, complicated battle between PacifiCare and California’s Insurance Commissioner. The Commissioner alleged in an administrative action that PacifiCare committed more than 900,000 violations of Insurance Code section 170.03(h) which involved unfair settlement practices. PacifiCare challenged the administrative finding that the allegations were true and the imposition of fines totaling more than $170 million by seeking injunctive relief in the Superior Court. The trial court enjoined the Insurance Commissioner from further enforcement of the administrative regulations. Justice Goethals wrote the court’s published opinion which reversed the trial court’s finding that the regulations promulgated by the Commissioner were invalid and vacated the injunctive relief granted. The matter was then remanded for further proceedings.
Hedayati v. Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile Club (2021); 67 Cal. App. 5th 833.
The plaintiff, a recent medical school graduate, was crossing the street in a crosswalk when the defendant’s insured ran a red light and struck her. As a result of the accident, plaintiff suffered multiple bone fractures, lost her leg, and was left in a coma. The plaintiff’s family retained counsel who repeatedly demanded policy limits information from the defendant. The Auto Club initially declined to provide any policy information; when it finally responded to counsel’s request, it refused to do so in writing. Ultimately, the Auto Club failed to settle plaintiff’s claims within its insured’s $25,000 policy limit. Plaintiff thereafter secured a $26 million judgment against the insured driver along with his rights to pursue a claim against the Auto Club for breaching its covenant of good faith and fair dealing as to him. When the plaintiff thereafter sued the Auto Club, it responded by filing a motion for summary judgment which the trial court granted. Justice Goethals wrote the court’s published opinion which reversed the trial court’s ruling and sent the case back for trial.

Legal and Medical Malpractice

Moore v. Superior Court (2020); 57 Cal. App.5th 441.
While representing a client at a mandatory settlement conference, Plaintiff Moore yelled at the other participants, including the temporary judge, and refused to engage in settlement discussions. He later acknowledged that his conduct was the result of a tactical decision he had made before the MSC began. The trial court found Plaintiff in contempt, and he appealed. Justice Goethals wrote the court’s published opinion in which one of the trial court’s contempt citations was affirmed.

Personal Injury and Product Liability

Collins v. Diamond Generating Corp. (2025); (Official citation pending).
Defendants operated a large power plant in Palm Springs. While performing a complex annual maintenance procedure, an employee was killed. The accident resulted in the filing of a wrongful death claim against defendants. A jury awarded the plaintiff more than $100 million after the trial court declined to give instructions on both the Privette doctrine (Privette v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 689) and its exceptions. Justice Goethals wrote the court’s published opinion reversing the judgment and remanded the case for a retrial with appropriate instructions. A defense motion to dismiss the case after trial was also denied.
Huerta v. City of Santa Ana (2019); 39 Cal. App. 5th 41.
On Halloween night in 2014, three young girls were tragically killed by a speeding motorist as they crossed a street in a marked crosswalk. Plaintiffs sued the city of Santa Ana, in which the accident occurred, claiming the crosswalk constituted a “dangerous condition of public property” pursuant to Government Code sections 835 and 835.2. The trial court granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Justice Goethals wrote the court’s published opinion which affirmed the trial court, finding that the statutory immunity provided by the Government Code applied to the facts of this case.
Hedayati v. Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile Club (2021); 67 Cal. App. 5th 833.
The plaintiff, a recent medical school graduate, was crossing the street in a crosswalk when the defendant’s insured ran a red light and struck her. As a result of the accident, plaintiff suffered multiple bone fractures, lost her leg, and was left in a coma. The plaintiff’s family retained counsel who repeatedly demanded policy limits information from the defendant. The Auto Club initially declined to provide any policy information; when it finally responded to counsel’s request, it refused to do so in writing. Ultimately, the Auto Club failed to settle plaintiff’s claims within its insured’s $25,000 policy limit. Plaintiff thereafter secured a $26 million judgment against the insured driver along with his rights to pursue a claim against the Auto Club for breaching its covenant of good faith and fair dealing as to him. When the plaintiff thereafter sued the Auto Club, it responded by filing a motion for summary judgment which the trial court granted. Justice Goethals wrote the court’s published opinion which reversed the trial court’s ruling and sent the case back for trial.

Probate, Estates and Trusts

Justice Goethals has written many opinions on probate, estates and trusts related issues such as competency and undue influence.

Securities

Harding v. Lifetime Financial Inc. (2025); (Official citation pending).
Plaintiff lost his life savings when a thief represented himself to be a financial consultant for the defendant. He was not. Defendant had received prior complaints that someone using the thief’s name, which was similar to that of one of LFI’s actual representatives, was soliciting investments. Plaintiff sued to recover his loss. The trial court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment finding that, because plaintiff and defendant had no prior relationship, LFI owed Harding no duty here. Justice Goethals wrote the court’s published opinion which affirmed the trial court’s ruling. The court also invited the legislature to examine the issue for purposes of passing future legislation on the subject.

Water Rights

Mojave Pistachio LLC v. Indian Wells Valley Groundwater Authority (2024); (Official citation pending).
Plaintiff grows pistachios on 1600 acres in the Coachella Valley. It irrigates its orchards with water pumped from the underlying water basin. Pursuant to Water Code section 10720 et seq (the Sustainable Groundwater Act commonly known as SGMA), the local groundwater agency determined that all groundwater extractions would be subject to a statutory basin replenishment fee. Plaintiff refused to pay and filed suit challenging the agency’s authority to impose the replenishment fee. The trial court sustained the agency’s demurrer finding that plaintiff’s claims were barred by California’s “pay first, litigate later” rule. Justice Goethals wrote the court’s published opinion which reviewed the complex history of California water law before affirming the trial court’s ruling.

Hon. Thomas M. Goethals (Ret.)

Fee Schedule