Practice areas: Business Litigation, Construction Litigation, General Litigation; view more
Licensed in California since: 2011
Education: University of the Pacific McGeorge School of Law
Selected to Rising Stars: 2020 - 2024 Call today:
925-532-1804
Alves Radcliffe LLP
3200 Danville BlvdSuite 100
Alamo, CA 94507 Visit website
Details 
Scott Radcliffe is an accomplished trial attorney based in Alamo, California. Mr. Radcliffe handles a wide variety of cases including representation of both plaintiffs and defendants in business, construction, and real estate disputes. He has handled cases through trial and arbitration involving partnership disputes, securities fraud, corporate governance issues, legal malpractice, landslide incidents, construction defects and real estate disputes.
Mr. Radcliffe is often retained as trial counsel at the last minute to try cases that other attorneys could not resolve. In one instance, Mr. Radcliffe was retained as defense counsel the day before trial to defend against a $2.7 million legal malpractice case. He tried the case and obtained a complete defense verdict with his clients recovering their costs. In another instance, Mr. Radcliffe was retained one week before trial in a complex partnership dispute. Mr. Radcliffe resolved the case during trial with his clients paying nothing. Mr. Radcliffe's key to success in litigation and trial is thorough preparation and unwavering attention to detail.
Mr. Radcliffe's diverse legal background empowers him to approach litigation with a creative mind, offering perspectives that usually demand a team of multiple attorneys of different practice groups. This enables clients to optimize their outcomes with efficiency at a fraction of the costs of other firms. Mr. Radcliffe is dedicated to understanding each client's needs and litigation goals, providing thoughtful and budget-friendly legal solutions no matter the size or complexity of the case.
Mr. Radcliffe's cases have captured media attention, including CBS News, The Daily Journal’s Top Verdicts, Jury Verdict Alerts, The Sacramento Bee, The Business Journal and California Public Radio. He stands as a steadfast defender for his clients, guiding them through their legal challenges with skillful support and reassurance. His peers commend his pristine, client-focused practice, which emphasizes personalized care, careful attention to detail and a passionate drive to resolve their legal dilemmas.
Practice areas
Business Litigation, Construction Litigation: Consumer, General Litigation, Real Estate: Business, Securities LitigationFocus areas
Construction Defects, Litigation
- 20% Business Litigation
- 20% Construction Litigation: Consumer
- 20% General Litigation
- 20% Real Estate: Business
- 20% Securities Litigation
First Admitted: 2011, California
Professional Webpage: https://www.alvesradcliffe.com/scott-e-radcliffe/
Bar / Professional Activity
- McGeorge’s nationally ranked Moot Court Team, Member
- American Bar Association, 2022
- Contra Costa County Bar Association, 2022
- Sacramento County Bar Association, 2022
- California Lawyers Association (formerly State Bar of California), 2022
Verdicts / Settlements (Case Results)
- Obtained judgment of $1,437,484.58 against real estate developer., 2025
- $1,616,759 - Settlement, real estate and breach of contract matter , 2024
- Obtained securities fraud judgment of $1,120,942 on behalf of defrauded investor, 2025
- Obtained $935,000 settlement for homeowners versus contractor. Represented Plaintiffs-homeowners in a lawsuit against their former pool contractor and gunite subcontractor. Plaintiffs alleged claims for fraud, breach of contract, negligence and disgorgement pursuant to Bus. & Prof. Code Section 7130(b). Plaintiffs employed eight experts and performed a ten month investigation using state of the art technology including ground penetrating radar. Plaintiffs' investigation conclusively established the pool was not properly constructed requiring complete removal and replacement of the pool, decking and expansive soils with non-expansive soils. Defendants disputed liability, damages and the insurance carriers disputed any coverage. One defendant declared bankruptcy twice during the litigation. Defendants' last offers were a combined $10,000. Plaintiffs successfully removed the case from bankruptcy and persuaded the carriers they were in bad faith for denying their coverage obligations. On the day prior to trial, the matter settled with Defendants paying Plaintiffs $935,000 including their full cost of repair, Stearman costs and attorney's fees, 2024
- Obtained $705,000 settlement. Represented Plaintiffs-homeowner versus their former contractor alleging claims of breach of contract, fraud, negligence and disgorgement pursuant to Bus. & Prof. Code Section 7031(b). Plaintiffs alleged that Defendant breached the parties' contract, violated California laws and local building codes, and defrauded Plaintiffs into paying sums defendant was not entitled to. Defendant denied liability and damages and the insurance carrier denied coverage on Plaintiffs' claims. Defendant's last offer was $10,000. Plaintiffs successfully persuaded the carrier of its coverage obligations. Following multiple successful rulings on motions in limine the day before trial, Defendant agreed to settle with Plaintiffs for more than $705,000, 2024
- Obtained $375,000 settlement on behalf of mechanical and sheet metal contractor versus general contractor on public works project at UC Davis, 2025
- Obtained $120,000 settlement. Represented Plaintiffs-homeowners against their former pool contractor for claims of negligence, breach of contract and disgorgement pursuant to Bus. & Prof. Code Section 7031(b). Plaintiffs alleged Defendant negligently constructed the pool, decking, and arbor. The matter resolved in a favorable settlement with Plaintiffs receiving $120,000, 2024
- $248,000 confidential settlement on behalf of client against Fortune 500 Company, 2025
- Defense settlement related to multiple home fire. Obtained a nuisance settlement on behalf of defendant at 5% of Plaintiff's demand, 2025
- Obtained defense settlement of $0 on behalf of homeowner sued by former contractor. Clients hired Scott after firing their prior attorney who was unable to achieve progress in the litigation against their former contractor. After Scott was retained he was able to get the case resolved within 60 days with the client paying nothing, 2024
- Defense judgment in $1.8 million landslide dispute. Recovered $74,000 in costs and expert fees on behalf of client. On May 30, 2023, Plaintiffs, owners of two homes located in San Francisco, sued their two downhill neighbors after the parties’ 10 foot by 80-foot concrete retaining wall failed after a record 100-year rain storm dropped 5.5 inches of rain fall in 24 hours. The 80-year-old retaining wall separated the properties’ rear yards and ultimately fell downhill into Defendants’ backyards causing 15 feet of Plaintiffs’ rear yards to subside. Plaintiffs alleged claims of Negligence, Nuisance and Loss of Lateral and Subjacent Support based on Civil Code Section 832 against both downhill owners. Plaintiffs sought more than $1.8 million for replacing the wall, lost use of property and emotional distress. Plaintiff’s Contentions Plaintiffs contended that Defendants were strictly liable for the wall failure based on Civil Code Section 832 and a claim of negligence per se. Plaintiffs contended that Civil Code Section 832 provided Plaintiffs with an absolute right to lateral support from Defendant as the downhill owner. Plaintiffs further alleged Defendants negligently maintained the wall claiming they should have known the wall needed repair. Plaintiffs contended the cost to repair the wall was $1.2 million and sought an additional $600,000 for emotional distress and loss of use of portions of their rear yards. Defendant’s Contentions Defendants contended that Civil Code Section 832 and negligence per se did not apply. Defendant argued the statute pertains to matters involving excavation and there were no allegations of excavation involved in the case. Defendant further contended it was not the proximate cause of the failure as the record rain storm was an Act of God. Further, Defendant contended there was no basis for her to believe the wall needed repair prior to the failure. Defendant disputed Plaintiffs’ scope and cost of repair arguing the actual cost was approximately $330,000 and that the wall was a common wall subject to Civil Code 841 requiring the parties to split the costs to rebuild. Lastly, Defendant argued that it was entitled to a $500,000 set off of the other downhill owner’s pre-trial settlement and therefore there were no recoverable damages even if Defendant was liable for a portion of the wall. Result Judgment in favor of Defendant. Prior to trial, Plaintiffs dismissed their claims for Negligence and Nuisance. Plaintiffs requested the Court rule, before trial, on Defendant’s Motion in Limine No. 16 which sought an evidentiary order to exclude Plaintiffs’ claims for strict liability or negligence per se based on Civil Code Section 832. The Court granted Defendant’s Motion In Limine No. 16 finding that Civil Code Section 832 did not apply. Defendant’s request for cost of $82,557.06 is pending the Court’s ruling. Plaintiffs have a pending appeal disputing the Court’s ruling that Civil Code Section 832 does not apply. Judge Hon. Braden C. Woods of Department 608 Court San Francisco County Superior Court JAMS Case No.CGC-23-606844 Defendants denied any liability and disputed Plaintiffs’ alleged damages. Defendant represented only one of the two downhill owners. The other downhill owner settled prior to trial for $500,000. The downhill owners retained separate counsel to sue the uphill owners and those claims were settled before trial. The only remaining claims at trial were the two uphill owners versus Defendant, 2024
- Obtained defense judgment after trial with client recovering $30,000 in costs. Successfully defended a commercial parts broker in a case brought by a leading agricultural supplier for fraud, breach of contract and implied warranties brought under the California Commercial Code. Plaintiff alleged Defendant fraudulent induced it into an oral contract for the purchase of $500,000 of brass check valves. Plaintiff alleged that Defendant provided valves that were not manufactured according to the specifications requested. Defendant disputed liability and damages. Following a three week bench trial, the Court entered judgment in favor of the defendant awarding Plaintiff $0. The Court agreed with the defense theory of the case that Plaintiff had not suffered any damages. Defendant prevailed on its pre-trial C.C.P. Section 998 Offer for $0. Defendant was awarded more than $30,000 in costs, 2023
- Retained as defense trial counsel days before trial in a contentious business partnership dispute. Plaintiff sought over $600,000 in damages for claims of fraud, conversion, and breach of fiduciary duty. Defendant disputed liability and damages. Following a one week trial continuance, the matter settled favorably with Defendant paying Plaintiff nothing. , 2023
- Cannabis Law - Obtained Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings dismissing Plaintiff's Corporate Code Section 709 claim seeking judicial determination to remove Cannabis Company's Chief Executive Officer., 2021
- Construction law - Obtained Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings dismissing Plaintiff's Mechanic's Lien., 2021
- Construction Defect Litigation - Tried a 3 month trial during the pandemic resulting in a judgment of $475,000. Heavily disputed action with sixteen witnesses including eleven experts testifying at trial, 2021
- Construct defect/assault - confidential settlement in favor of plaintiffs, 2021
- Premises liability claim alleging permanent loss of eye - Obtained favorable Defense settlement, 2021
- Cannabis Law - County fined landlord $3.1 million dollars. Successfully negotiated settlement for $7,500, 2020
- Cannabis Law: County fined landlord $1.8 million. Resolved for $50,000, 2019
- Cannabis Law - following successful administrative hearing, fine of $657,000 reduced by City to $10,000 and resolved, 2019
- Cannabis Law - Represented a large Sacramento cannabis courier against its commercial landlord who attempted to lock client out from premises. Immediately obtained mandatory injunction reinstating client to its business followed by a favorable, confidential settlement, 2019
- Pedestrian versus vehicle - defense settlement on eve of trial, 2019
- Cannabis Law: partnership dispute - favorable confidential settlement in favor of plaintiff, 2019
- Cannabis Law: City fined landlord $667,000. Resolved for $0.00., 2019
- Trade secret litigation - defense verdict reached on demurrer with attorney's fees awarded and Court finding that plaintiffs’ claims were objectively specious, 2019
- Property damage dispute - summary judgment granted, 2019
- Commercial Real Estate - represented nightclub against billionaire landlord for wrongful eviction. Confidential settlement in favor of client/night club, 2018
- Cannabis fine - fine of $657,000 resolved for $0.00, 2018
- Commercial Lease Dispute - represented a restaurant being sued against a national real estate developer. Following filing of Restaurant’s Cross-Complaint, matter settled with developer receiving nothing and paying client five figure settlement, 2018
- Professional Malpractice - Complete defense verdict obtained on Plaintiffs' claims for $2.7 million in damages despite finding that client fell below standard of care in rendering services. Successfully litigated issue of lack of causation between malpractice and Plaintiffs' alleged damages., 2018
- Cannabis cultivation/ partnership dispute - defense verdict, 2018
- Commercial Lease Dispute - represented restaurant against landlord, a $2 Billion REIT. Obtained favorable six figure confidential settlement for breach of lease, 2017
- Trial for Commercial eviction - represented landlord against restaurant for unlawful assignment and failure to pay rent. Following trial, landlord was awarded $50,000 in damages and restored possession, 2017
- Breach of Contract/Fraud: Following six-week jury trial, verdict award and costs of $400,000 for skincare manufacturer against distributor, 2015
- Legal Malpractice - represented a national real estate developer against their former transaction attorney for malpractice. $550,000 settlement obtained, 2014
Pro bono / Community Service
- Volunteer Appellate Judge for McGeorge Law School Moot Court competitions Over ten hours of pro bono work assisting landlords and tenants in commercial and residential real estate issues, 2023
Educational Background
- University of San Diego, B.A., 2007
Honors
- McGeorge School of Law, University of the Pacific, Sacramento, California, Dean’s List, 2009-2011
- McGeorge School of Law, University of the Pacific, Sacramento, California, Member of the Roger J. Traynor
- McGeorge School of Law, University of the Pacific, Sacramento, California, Society
- McGeorge School of Law, University of the Pacific, Sacramento, California, Witkin Award for receiving the highest grade in Appellate Writing & Advocacy
- Business Litigation, Sacramento Top Lawyer, Sacramento Magazine, 2021
- Business litigation, Sacramento Top Lawyer, Sacramento Magazine, 2020
- Business litigation, Sacramento Top Lawyer, Sacramento Magazine, 2017
- Finalist, Pace International Criminal Court Moot Court Competition
- Witkin Award for receiving the highest grade in Appellate Writing & Advocacy, McGeorge School of Law
Industry Groups
- and Real Estate
- Business
- Construction
Office location for Scott E. Radcliffe
3200 Danville Blvd
Suite 100
Alamo, CA 94507
Phone: 925-532-1804
Selections
5 Years Rising Stars
- Rising Stars: 2020 - 2024
