Photo of Frederic "Rick" Norris

Frederic "Rick" Norris

As a trial counsel in one of the first remote jury trials since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, Rick has first-hand trial experience selecting a jury and conducting witness examinations via Zoom. His thought leadership in this area led to an article in Law360 and CLE presentations providing advice on overcoming the challenges inherent in remote trials.

Rick is well-versed in defending clients against claims of mesothelioma and other malignancies, as well as handling matters of catastrophic death and catastrophic injury. As part of the firm’s Asbestos Litigation team, Rick is among the recognized innovators and award winners when handling complex tort claims with a business solutions approach.

In 2013, Mr. Norris completed the prestigious Trial Advocacy Program (TAP) through the Los Angeles Bar Association. In this program he served as a Volunteer Prosecutor with the Los Angeles District Attorney's Office. During his time with the District Attorney's Office, Mr. Norris prosecuted two cases to verdict.

Contact:Read more about Frederic "Rick" Norris

Background – Public Health and the Need for Employer Accountability

Senate Bill 20, also called the Silicosis Training, Outreach, and Prevention (STOP) Act, was signed into law by Governor Newsom on October 13, 2025.1 Senator Caroline Menjivar is on the forefront of this battle to avoid preventable injuries and illnesses by enforcing proper safety measures at fabrication shops.

Relevant History

On December 29, 2023, the California Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board instituted an emergency regulation to address occupational exposure to respirable crystalline silica. This regulation addressed additional safety requirements for businesses involved in cutting engineered stone, improved monitoring for workplace sites, and increasing the ability for workers to report non-compliant employers. These emergency regulations became permanent in February 2025.

On February 7, 2025, Judge Walker, sitting in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, ruled that the Plaintiff (a subsidiary of a parent company engaged in nationwide talcum powder litigation) (“Plaintiff”) had standing to sue expert pathologists who testify for plaintiffs in personal injury litigation (“expert pathologists”) for injurious falsehood/product disparagement based on allegedly false statements in a scientific article purportedly linking cosmetic talc to mesothelioma.1 Although the experts did not name Plaintiff, or specific products in their scientific article, Judge Walker held that the subsidiary plausibly alleged that their economic injuries were traceable to the expert pathologists’ allegedly false statements, which contributed to a decline in consumer demand for baby powder products.

Observers of filing trends in personal injury mesothelioma matters alleging exposure to talc contaminated with asbestos have noted that the bankruptcy filing of a predominant defendant in those matters did little to slow the pace of such filings. Instead, as the filing of new matters continued, the number of defendants named in such filings substantially increased.