“She is respected within the legal community as not only a subject matter expert, but also as strategic pioneer in the way that companies approach IP litigation.
”

“Rachael is by far the best attorney I have ever met. She has a raw ability to drive initiatives and get things done. She is a supreme fighter, but not in a bad way. Her personality is one that hates to lose, but wins in the right way. She builds a case based upon deep knowledge of the subject matter, case law, and understanding the value chain of the businesses she represents. She then dominates in proving her case time and time again. ”

“The supposed patentee sent me a letter. Rachael analyzed the case and sent
the patentee a letter outlining the flaws in his case and his patent. The
patentee went away.”

“Rachael is an intelligent, creative litigator who quickly identifies core issues and thinks strategically about how to address those issues. Rachael’s greatest strength, however, may be her passion and unyielding drive to always do whatever she can to best help her client. [Together,] Rachael and I successfully handled a number of cases together, including some very important patent troll victories. ”

“In spite of Rachael’s extraordinary litigation skills, the thing that has consistently impressed me the most about her is her integrity and desire to do the right thing. Although fiercely competitive, and always willing to fight, she keeps the bigger picture in mind in both her litigation strategy and her business advice. It is truly rare to find an absolute brawler with the compassion and ethics to get the best results for their client. ”

“It is what Otter did next that is unusual, if not unprecedented. Otter, represented in this case by Rachael (“Bryan McCann”) Lamkin of the San Francisco firm of Turner Boyd LLP (which means she probably really doesn’t appreciate the Cowboys references) moved for a procedural remedy directly aimed at preventing the extraction of settlements based on the cost of defense instead of actual damages.’ . . . it is important to note that this isn’t necessarily the right tactic for all defendants - even in this case - and certainly not in every case. But it’s an innovative way to try to resolve very small patent infringement claims, it’s very well-presented, and I just wanted to recognize it.”

“When Otter’s settlement offer was rejected, it filed a motion seeking to sever itself from the existing case and requesting a “reverse bifurcation” procedure in the new matter so that damages discovery and trial would precede liability discovery and trial. The motion appears to have had some effect: shortly after it was filed, Otter withdrew the motion citing additional discussions between the parties that suggested an amicable resolution.”