Kenneth Reyes

Top rated Family Law attorney in Los Angeles, California

Law Offices of Kenneth Reyes, APC
Kenneth Reyes
Law Offices of Kenneth Reyes, APC

Practice areas: Family Law, Immigration

Licensed in California since: 1999

Education: Southwestern Law School

Languages spoken: English, Spanish, Tagalog

Selected to Super Lawyers: 2026

Law Offices of Kenneth Reyes, APC

3699 Wilshire Blvd
Suite 747
Los Angeles, CA 90010 Phone: 213-388-1611 X101 Email: Kenneth Reyes Visit website

Mr. Reyes is the founder and Managing Partner of the Law Offices of Kenneth U. Reyes, APLC since 1999.

Mr. Reyes is an Attorney licensed in California, with both an active CPA license, and a (CFLS) Certified Family Law Specialist by the State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization. This is a very rare combination of credentials and experience that serves as an advantage in high networth divorce case. He has has extensive family law and civil litigation experience. Mr. Reyes handles mostly high net worth divorce cases involving complex financial issues including business valuation and characterization. Mr. Reyes is a CFLS with over 27 years experience. A Certified Family Law Specialist (CFLS) is an attorney who has demonstrated a high level of expertise and experience in family law and has been certified as a specialist by the State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization. This certification is not mandatory for attorneys practicing family law, but it signifies that the attorney has met specific requirements, including passing a written examination, demonstrating extensive experience in family law matters, completing additional continuing legal education, and receiving positive evaluations from other attorneys and judges. Choosing a CFLS can provide clients with the assurance that their attorney has a deep understanding of complex family law issues and is committed to providing high-quality representation.  As of 2024, there are approximately 175,883 active attorneys in California.Out of that number of active attorneys, the number of Certified Family Law Specialists (CFLS) is only approximately 1,100. This means that less than 1% of all attorneys in California hold this specialized certification in family law. 

In addition, Mr Reyes is also a CPA and has practiced accounting  prior to becoming an attorney and is very familiar dealing with complex financial issues. Prior to becoming an attorney, Mr. Reyes practiced as a CPA for 10 years for various firms and financial institutions including Arthur Andersen, LLP and Bank of America. In addition to handling family law cases, Mr. Reyes also handles immigration and estates and trust cases.

Mr. Reyes is currently serving as President of the PABA Foundation which is a 501(c)(3) charitable organization which raises funds to grant scholarships to law students all over Southern California.  It is affiliated with the Philippine American Bar Association (PABA) in Los Angeles.

Mr. Reyes was Chairman, President, and former Board Member of the Philippine American Bar Association. He is a member of the Los Angeles County Bar Association family law section, estates and trusts section, and immigration law section. Mr. Reyes is also a member of the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA). Mr. Reyes is admitted to practice in the California Supreme Court and the United States District Court Central District of California.

Mr. Reyes obtained his Juris Doctor degree from Southwestern University School of Law. He obtained his Bachelor's of Science degree in Business Administration with a concentration in Public Accounting from California State University at San Bernardino. He is a recipient of the CALI Excellence for the future award in International Income Taxation and Exceptional Achievement Award in Tax Administration and Litigation.

Mr. Reyes is also Founder and Managing Partner of Reyes Capital Management which manages a value oriented hedge fund inspired by the Buffett Partnership.  The fund invests in a concentrated group of companies that generates high return on capital with wide competitive moats.  Mr. Reyes serves as the general partners and invests the partnership's capital for the benefit of its limited partners. Mr. Reyes is the Chief Investment Officer in charge of evaluating the businesses for which the hedge fund allocates capital.

Mr. Reyes is author of several legal articles published in the Asian Journal publication, California Examiner, and Balita newspaper. Mr. Reyes speaks English, Spanish, Tagalog, and Bicol.

First Admitted: 1999, California

Professional Webpage: https://www.kenreyeslaw.com/firm-overview/kenneth-reyes-esq-...

Bar / Professional Activity

  • Philippine American Bar Association 2023-2025  Advisory Board  2007-2022  Board Member 2006         Chairman 2005   President - led the organization and planned and organized local bar events. 2002-2004  Board Member Participated in bar events and functions, 2025
  • President of the Philippine American Bar Association., 2005
  • Current President of the PABA  Foundation. Over the past fourteen years, PABA Foundation has evolved from a grassroots initiative into a cornerstone of Filipino-American legal education in Southern California. We've awarded over $2 million in scholarships to more than 200 law students, established mentorship relationships that have guided 300+ students through their legal careers, and created community leadership opportunities that have engaged hundreds more in public interest work. Our scholarship recipients have gone on to clerk for federal judges, join prestigious law firms, launch public interest organizations, and return as mentors themselves—creating a virtuous cycle of support and success. The numbers tell part of the story, but the true impact lies in individual lives transformed, families lifted, and a community strengthened by seeing its members succeed in positions of influence and leadership. Today, PABA Foundation alumni practice in every legal sector across Southern California, from Big Law firms to district attorney offices, from nonprofit advocacy to judicial chambers, each one a testament to what becomes possible when barriers are removed and potential is support, 2026
  • 2000-2025  Member, Los Angeles County Bar Association Attended LACBA seminars particularly in the area of family law., 2025

Videos

Special Licenses / Certifications

  • Board Certified Family Law Specialist (CFLS), The State Bar of California I have been recertified 4 times by the California State bar in 5 year increments.  Each time, the California State Bar evaluates my credentials, experience, and peer review., 2010
  • Bar License No. 201538 issued by the State Bar of California., 1999
  • Active (CPA) Certified Public Accountant License 62538 issued by the State of California Department of Consumer Affairs. State Board of Accountancy. , 1992

Pro bono / Community Service

  • Currently serving as President of the PABA Foundation which is a 501(c)(3) charitable organization which raises funds to fund and grant scholarships to law students in Southern California. In 2010, PABA Foundation was officially established as a nonprofit organization dedicated to transforming barriers into bridges. The founding group pooled their resources and expertise, securing initial funding through personal contributions and community support. Their vision was clear: create a comprehensive support system that would address multiple dimensions of the challenge—scholarships to remove financial barriers, mentorship programs to provide guidance and connections, and community engagement initiatives to inspire the next generation. From the beginning, the foundation was built on data-driven principles and community accountability, tracking outcomes and adjusting strategies based on student needs and program results.Over the past fourteen years, PABA Foundation has evolved from a grassroots initiative into a cornerstone of Filipino-American legal education in Southern California. We've awarded over $2 million in scholarships to more than 200 law students, established mentorship relationships that have guided 300+ students through their legal careers, and created community leadership opportunities that have engaged hundreds more in public interest work. Our scholarship recipients have gone on to clerk for federal judges, join prestigious law firms, launch public interest organizations, and return as mentors themselves—creating a virtuous cycle of support and success. The numbers tell part of the story, but the true impact lies in individual lives transformed, families lifted, and a community strengthened by seeing its members succeed in positions of influence and leadership. Today, PABA Foundation alumni practice in every legal sector across Southern California, from Big Law firms to district attorney offices, from nonprofit advocacy to judicial chambers, each one a testament to what becomes possible when barriers are removed and potential is supported., 2026

Educational Background

  • Juris Doctor Degree from Southwestern University Law School. I obtained my Juris Doctor as an evening student at Southwestern University Law School while working full time as a CPA. I was awarded the Cali Excellence for the Future Award in International Tax for attaining the highest grade in the class.  I was also awarded the Southwestern Exceptional Achievement Award in Federal Tax Administration and Litigation for attaining the highest grade in that class. I also worked as  a law clerk for the Law Offices of Hugh Duff Robertson where I learned estate tax planning for high net worth entertainers and celebrities.  I also prepared the client's tax returns, trust, wills, and drafted entertainment contracts., 1995-1999
  • Executive Education in Value Investing Columbia University, Columbia Business School - New York Studied various techniques in valuing business.  Went through numerous case studies in valuing businesses such as Amazon, John Deer, and other publicly traded companies using the Asset Value Method, Earnings Power Method, and Franchise Value Method.  It is the same class Warren Buffett took under then Columbia University Professor Benjamin Graham. , 2020-2021
  • Bachelor's of Science Degree in Business Administration with a concentration in Public Accounting California State University, San Bernardino I took all the accounting classes needed to take the CPA exam from accounting 101 and 102, intermediate accounting, cost accounting, advanced accounting dealing with mergers and acquisition, taxation, audit, and management. I was a member of the Accounting Society. I also took 1 semester of MBA course but decided not to go forward with the MBA program in order to focus in passing the CPA exam and obtaining my CPA license., 1986-1989

White Papers

  • Marriage annulments in California are a legal process that declares a marriage null and void, as if it never existed. This differs significantly from a divorce, which terminates a valid marriage. Below, we explore the distinctions between annulments and divorces, the legal grounds for annulments in California, time limits for filing, the annulment process in Los Angeles, and the potential effects of an annulment., Marriage Erased: The Guide to Annulments in California, Family Law, 2025
  • Early in my career as a practicing lawyer in Los Angeles some 25 years ago, I used to look forward to receiving the print subscription of the Daily Journal which lays out all the new appellate cases by practice area. However, as the years passed and technology advanced, I found easier ways of accessing those cases online. The story of the Daily Journal Corporation (DJCO) is a classic demonstration of legendary investor Charlie Munger’s capital allocation genius and strategic foresight. Under Munger’s long-time chairmanship, the company transformed from a traditional, and eventually dying, legal newspaper publisher into a hybrid entity: a diversified holding company with a valuable legal technology subsidiary and an enviable portfolio of marketable securities. The Pivot from Publishing to Technology The Daily Journal Corporation traditionally thrived on its publishing division, which printed legal newspapers and, crucially, held an informational monopoly on publishing appellate court decisions. This monopoly generated significant cash flow, particularly during the foreclosure boom. However, the advent of the internet proved to be an existential threat, rapidly eroding the traditional newspaper’s value proposition. As Munger himself noted, the publishing business was slowly “dying.” Recognizing the inevitable decline, the company began strategically shifting its focus toward a new, high-potential area: legal technology. This pivot was spearheaded by a series of acquisitions that eventually consolidated into the subsidiary known as Journal Technologies., Charlie Munger’s Masterstroke of Pivoting the Daily Journal from Print to Tech, Hedge Fund. Alternative Investments., 2026
  • Divorce is complicated, and when you throw life insurance into the mix, it can feel like you’re trying to solve a puzzle with missing pieces. In California, two landmark cases, In re: Marriage of Valli and In re: Marriage of Burwell, brought much-needed clarity to the division of life insurance policies. These cases address unique situations and establish key principles for family law attorneys and their clients.In re: Marriage of Valli: A Whole Life Policy’s True CharacterThe case of In re: Marriage of Valli (2014) tackled the complexities of a whole life insurance policy purchased during a marriage. A husband, while hospitalized with heart problems, used community funds to buy a whole life insurance policy. After discussions with his wife, he designated her as both the owner and beneficiary., Navigating the Maze: How California Courts Divide Life Insurance in Divorce, Family Law, 2025
  • he landscape of divorce litigation has undergone a tectonic shift. No longer is the "out-spouse" (the partner without direct access to the books or business) forced to play a high-stakes game of "detective" to find community assets. Modern fiduciary duties have turned the "burden of discovery" on its head, moving from a culture of "hide-and-seek" to a mandate of radical transparency. Historically, divorce discovery was an adversarial marathon. The spouse who managed the business or the family's complex investments (the "in-spouse") held all the cards, while the "out-spouse" was burdened with demanding the right documents and asking the perfect questions just to see the community estate. This often led to "discovery wars" where the wealthier, more informed spouse could simply out-wait or out-spend the other, From "Catch Me if You Can" to "Tell All or Pay Up", Family Law, 2026

Scholarly Lectures / Writings

  • 2001 to Present I have been writing legal articles and contributing content to the Los Angeles Asian Journal.  The Asian Journal is a leading newspaper in the Asian community with a circulation of 60,000.  The newspaper is also available on-line where you can find all my weekly legal articles touching upon various family law issues and immigration issues.  Most of my articles provide solutions to peoples family law and immigration law problems., Author/ Legal contributor, Barrister's Corner Article - Asian Journal Publications, Los Angeles Asian Journal, Asian Community In Los Angeles, 2025
  • Foreigners that have either a business in their home country or have the capital or can raise the capital to establish a business in the US, there is an option for obtaining long term status in the US that confers a lot of privileges to the applicant. This is either through the E-1 “treaty traders” or the E-2 “treaty investors.” Both classifications required that 1) the alien seeking E status is a national of a country with an appropriate treaty; 2) the US business to employ the alien is owned at least 50% by nationals of the same country as the E alien; 3) the trade or investment by the treaty nationals is “substantial”; and 4) the alien seeking E status either is an actual investor in the US business, has an executive or supervisory position in the US business, or possesses skills essential to the US business. The major distinction between the two is that under the E-1, the US business must conduct “substantial trade” with and for which over 50% of the substantial trade conducted with the treaty country. On the other hand, the E-2 requires “substantial investment” in the US business., Author/ Legal contributor, The e-visa classification as an immigration option for foreign investors, Asian Journal Publication, Immigration Law, 2025
  • The high cost of living in California and over regulation has made a lot of parents evaluate whether to move out of state. The most common states that people move to are Texas, Arizona, Nevada, or Florida where the cost of living is lower and taxes are less or non-existent. However, if a parent with shared custody wants to move away with the children, they must follow a specific legal process to ensure the move is in the child's best interests. The move has to be allowed by the court through a court order because it will affect the non-moving parent’s custody/visitation rights. A parent cannot simply decide to move with the children without a court order. With the distance between the parents, the existing custody and visitation orders will no longer work out. If a child custody order is in effect, the moving parent must notify the other parent that they intend to move, and oftentimes, they must often bring a request to modify the child custody and visitation order to court. The parent planning to move must provide written notice to the other parent at least 45 days before the intended move date. The notice should include the new addressand contact information, the reason for the move, the proposed new custody and visitation arrangements., Author, Navigating the Child Custody Move Away process in California., Asian Journal News, Family Law, 2025

Other Outstanding Achievements

  • outstanding review from client over many years   https://g.co/kgs/ri3J4nP  , 2025

Firm News (Newsletters)

  • Monthly family law article dealing with various issues in family law such as domestic violence, custody, child support, prenuptial agreements, asset characterization and division in marital dissolution proceedings., Legal Blog for the Law Offices of Kenneth U. Reyes, Consumer Law
  • The purchase of See’s Candies by Berkshire Hathaway was one of the first deals in which Warren Buffett learned how to pay up for a great business. Prior to that, most of Buffett’s deals involved buying not so great business for a wonderful price sometimes referred to as “Cigar Butt Investing.” See’s Candies also taught Buffett the power of a brand as a moat. Historical Background See’s Candies is a manufacturer and distributor of candy, especially chocolates. It was founded by Charles See, his wife Florence, and his mother Mary See in Pasadena, California in 1921. The company differentiated itself by focusing on small-batch production and using only the highest quality ingredients.After Mary See’s death in 1939, her son Charles took over the business and later Charles’ son Laurence expanded the business to more than 160 stores. Laurence See died in 1969, and his brother Harry was not willing to carry on running the business. It was said that brother Harry See wanted to enjoy “wine and girls” instead. As a result, Chuck Huggins, who was then serving as the company’s Vice President, was asked to find a buyer for the business. In 1972, Robert Flaherty, an investor at Blue Chip Stamps (later merged into Berkshire), was tipped off that See’s was on the market. At this point, Blue Chip was already part of Warren Buffett’s portfolio through his holding company, Berkshire Hathaway. Warren Buffett and Charlie Munger met with Harry See and Chuck Huggins in Los Angeles. Buffett and Munger wanted Huggins to maintain the high ethics the See’s family had instilled in the business culture, keep enhancing the reputation of the brand and offer higher standards of service. They wanted Huggins to continue to manage the business should the deal close. Buffett and Munger were hesitant to buy See’s Candies since Harry See wanted $30 million for the business while the net tangible assets were only $8 million and after-tax profits were only about $2 million. This deal was way too expensive for what Buffett was accustomed to. Buffett was not accustomed paying more than three times net tangible asset for the business. High Return on Tangible Asset However, Charlie Munger and Ira Marshall (Munger’s partner in his investment fund Wheeler and Munger) pointed out to Buffett that See’s was a special company and that it had after tax returns of 25% percent on tangible assets of $8 million. A high return on capital is an indication of a great business. Further, the Blue-Chip Stamp team (Blue Chip Stamps was later merged into Berkshire) believed that See’s had pricing power. Although it was pricing its candies at par with its closest competitor Russell Stover at the time, they believed that they could raise prices yearly. Buffett offered $25 million to buy See’s Candies and was willing to walk away from the deal if the seller demanded a dollar more. Fortunately, Harry See agreed to sell the business for $25 million in 1972. After the acquisition, Huggins was made President and CEO where he continued to build the franchise and widened the moat by never compromising on the quality of the products. See’s is a prime example of the effect of Brand on people’s mind which provided a basis for price increases and exceptional returns on capital employed.One peculiar thing about See’s Candies is that the brand did not travel. The brand was well recognized in the western states such as California, but Berkshire attempted to open stores in other states which was not successful. Customers were unfamiliar with the brand and unwilling to pay the high prices. Pricing Power Since its acquisition, Buffett has been raising prices of See’s Candies annually. If you buy See’s candies during the holidays, you will notice the higher prices year after year. A comparison of See’s Sales and Profit in 1972 as compared to 1982 will show the effect of its pricing power. During that 10-year period, the number of pounds of candies sold only increased 45% from 17 million lbs. to 24 million lbs. The number of stores only rose 21% from 167 stores to 202 stores. However, the Sales increased by 295% from $31 million in 1972 to $124 million in 1982 due primarily to price increases. What is even more astounding is Profit after taxes increased a whopping 452% during that 10-year period from $2.3 million in 1972 to $12.7 million in 1982 due to a combination of price increases and operating efficiencies in advertising and distribution. By 1991, See’s increased its pre-tax profits tenfold to $42.4 million while only tripling its tangible assets. By 1999, See’s has achieved operating profit margin of 24%. However, Berkshire is not able to reinvest See’s profits back into the business. The Business does not require a lot of capital to operate. In fact, Munger said that it takes almost no capital to open a See’s store. Cumulatively since its purchase in 1972, See’s total pre-tax earnings exceeded $2 billion which Berkshire was able to reinvest in other businesses all from the original $25 million investment. Even if they had paid the $30 million that Harry was demanding, it would still have turned out to be a great investment. The purchase of See’s Canies was pivotal in the evolution of Buffett’s investing style from investing in cheap but not so good businesses to investing in great businesses at a reasonable price. This also paved the way for future investments in name brands such as Coca-Cola, The Washington Post, Apple, Dairy Queen, and Benjamin Moore., See’s Candies: A Case Study on the Power of Moats and High Return on Capital, Hedge Fund. Alternative Investments.
  • Many spouses in California enter into a marriage thinking that having a fully executed premarital agreement is a “bulletproof” way of protecting their assets in case of a divorce in the future. However, it is not as simple as that. Although a premarital agreement offers some protection, the court needs to make certain findings if its enforceability is contested by the other spouse. Family Code section 1615, subdivision (c) (section 1615(c)) creates a presumption “that a premarital agreement was not executed voluntarily” unless the trial court makes five designated findings. A premarital agreement is presumed to have not been executed voluntarily, and is therefore unenforceable, unless the trial court finds in writing or on the record that the agreement satisfies the requirements of section 1615(c)(1) and (2). Last v. Superior Court 94 Cal. App. 5th 30. 311 Cal. Rptr. 3d 791. Family Code Section 1615 (c) provides: For the purposes of subdivision (a), it shall be deemed that a premarital agreement was not executed voluntarily unless the court finds in writing or on the record all of the following: (1) The party against whom enforcement is sought was represented by independent legal counsel at the time of signing the agreement or, after being advised to seek independent legal counsel, expressly waived, in a separate writing, representation by independent legal counsel. The advisement to seek independent legal counsel shall be made at least seven calendar days before the final agreement is signed. (2) One of the following: (A) For an agreement executed between January 1, 2002, and January 1, 2020, the party against whom enforcement is sought had not less than seven calendar days between the time that party was first presented with the final agreement and advised to seek independent legal counsel and the time the agreement was signed. This requirement does not apply to nonsubstantive amendments that do not change the terms of the agreement. (B) For an agreement executed on or after January 1, 2020, the party against whom enforcement is sought had not less than seven calendar days between the time that party was first presented with the final agreement and the time the agreement was signed, regardless of whether the party is represented by legal counsel. This requirement does not apply to nonsubstantive amendments that do not change the terms of the agreement. (3) The party against whom enforcement is sought, if unrepresented by legal counsel, was fully informed of the terms and basic effect of the agreement as well as the rights and obligations the party was giving up by signing the agreement, and was proficient in the language in which the explanation of the party’s rights was conducted and in which the agreement was written. The explanation of the rights and obligations relinquished shall be memorialized in writing and delivered to the party prior to signing the agreement. The unrepresented party shall, on or before the signing of the premarital agreement, execute a document declaring that the party received the information required by this paragraph and indicating who provided that information. (4) The agreement and the writings executed pursuant to paragraphs (1) and (3) were not executed under duress, fraud, or undue influence, and the parties did not lack capacity to enter into the agreement. (5) Any other factors the court deems relevant. Although § 1615, subd. (a) places the ultimate burden of proof on the party claiming the premarital agreement is unenforceable, it does not raise a presumption that the premarital agreement is enforceable. It contains a series of objectively ascertainable factors that, if found by the trial court, would overcome the presumption of involuntary execution. Section 1615, subd. (c), in effect creates a presumption that a premarital agreement is unenforceable on the ground it was not executed voluntarily. In Last v. Superior Court, the trial court granted the wife's request for temporary spousal support even though there was a premarital agreement which waives spousal support. The trial court did not adjudicate the issue whether the parties' premarital agreement, which included a provision by which the wife purported to waive any right to receive spousal support in the event the marriage ended in dissolution, was enforceable but granted the husband's request to bifurcate that issue. A premarital agreement is presumed to have not been executed voluntarily, and is therefore unenforceable, unless the trial court finds in writing or on the record that the agreement satisfies the requirements of Fam. Code, § 1615, subd. (c)(1) & (2). Because the husband did not ask the trial court to conduct a facial review of the premarital agreement and make findings under § 1615, subd. (c)(1) & (2), and because the trial court made no such findings, the agreement had to be deemed to have been involuntarily executed at the time the trial court ordered temporary spousal support. As a result, the trial court retained authority under Fam. Code, § 3600, to award temporary spousal support to the wife. Last v. Superior Court 94 Cal. App. 5th 30. 311 Cal. Rptr. 3d 791. In light of the above, it is important for the spouse trying to enforce the premarital agreement to ask the court to make the five findings pursuant to Family Code Section 1615 (c)(1) through (5)., Overcoming the presumption of unenforceability of Premarital Agreements, Family Law
  • Has your spouse or significant other abused you and/or your minor children? If so, then you may seek protection by filing for a domestic violence restraining order in court against the abuser. If you are seeking protection from abuse perpetrated by your spouse or partner toward you and/or your children, you may apply for a Domestic Violence Restraining Order. This can be filed on an emergency basis (Ex Parte) if you need immediate protection. This is usually filed using form DV-100, DV-101, DV-109, DV-110, CLETS-001, along with an extensive declaration and supporting evidence. The court will make a decision whether to grant you an emergency restraining order protection. Whether or not the court grants the emergency restraining order protection, the court will set a trial for your DVRO. The papers will have to be personally served on the alleged perpetrator of domestic violence at least 5 court days or more prior to the trial. The respondent will then have an opportunity to file a response, declaration, and evidence in opposition to your allegation. At the DVRO trial, both parties will have the opportunity to testify, present witnesses, and introduce evidence. Under California law, "domestic violence" is defined broadly to include a pattern of abusive behavior used by one intimate partner against another to gain or maintain power and control. It's not limited to physical violence and encompasses a wide range of abusive behaviors. Here are the main types of abuse recognized under California's domestic violence statutes:, Do I need to file for a Domestic Violence Restraining Order?, Family Law

Honors

  • Obtained the highest grade in International Tax Class in law school., Cali Excellence for the Future Award in International Tax, CALI AWARD, 1998
  • High School Award based on GPA and other criterias., Presidential Academic Fitness Award, President of the United States, 1986
  • Obtained the highest grade in Federal Tax Administration and Litigation., Exceptional Achievement Award in Federal Tax Administration and Litigation, Southwestern University Law School, 1998

Industry Groups

  • Consumers; Families

Office location for Kenneth Reyes

3699 Wilshire Blvd
Suite 747
Los Angeles, CA 90010

Selections

1 Year Super Lawyers
  • Super Lawyers: 2026

Certificates and credentials

California Board of Legal Specialization
Family Law
California Board of Legal Specialization logo

Additional sources of information about Kenneth Reyes

Attorney resources for Kenneth Reyes

Download badge
Update profile
Order online

Find top lawyerswith confidence

The Super Lawyers patented selection process is peer influenced and research driven, selecting the top 5% of attorneys to the Super Lawyers lists each year. We know lawyers and make it easy to connect with them.

Page Generated: 0.12374401092529 sec