- California
Linda Lam
Linda Lam focuses her practice on representing individuals who have been harmed by corporate misconduct. She has recovered tens of millions of dollars for consumers and investors by prosecuting fraud, breach of contract, and breach of fiduciary duty cases against large banks and insurance companies.
Linda regularly represents investors who have lost substantial sums of money as a result of fraud, including most recently in Camenisch v. Umpqua Bank. There, the plaintiffs alleged that Umpqua aided and abetted a fraudulent scheme based in Marin County that caused investors, many of whom are senior citizens, to lose hundreds of millions of dollars. After a four-week trial that ended in a hung jury, the case settled for $55 million.
Linda has also been an advocate for borrowers who suffered foreclosures during the Great Recession. She represented a certified class of over 1,200 borrowers who lost their homes after Wells Fargo wrongfully denied them trial mortgage modifications. The case settled for $40 million, resulting in significant payments to each class member.
In addition to prosecuting class actions, Linda also represents individual clients in personal injury cases. Most recently, she achieved a favorable settlement for a student who suffered a traumatic brain injury as a result of peer-on-peer harassment at a Bay Area school. She has also represented individuals in automobile and pedestrian accident cases, as well as medical malpractice cases.
Before joining Gibbs Mura, Linda represented workers and retirees in cases concerning employee benefits.
admissions−
awards+
Rising Star, Northern California Super Lawyers, 2017-2024
education+
- J.D., magna cum laude, Order of the Coif, University of California College of the Law, San Francisco, 2014
- B.A., University of California, Los Angeles, 2011
Presentations & Articles+
Co-author, “H.R. 1215: Obliterating Access to Justice for Severe Medical Negligence”
Impact Fund Practitioner Blog
May 2, 2017
The Real ID Act: Proposed Amendments for Credibility Determinations
11 Hastings Race & Poverty L.J. 321
2014
Litigation Highlights
Camenisch v. Umpqua Bank
Linda was one of the trial lawyers who represented over 1,200 class members in a four-week jury trial against Umpqua Bank (now known as Columbia Bank). The plaintiff class alleged that Umpqua aided and abetted a fraudulent investment scheme by Professional Financial Investors (PFI). Plaintiffs argued that PFI ran a fraudulent scheme that used investor money to personally benefit PFI’s executives, including its principals Ken Casey and Lewis Wallach, pay other investors, and cover recurring shortages across its dozens of accounts at Umpqua. Ultimately, the jury could not reach a unanimous decision, and the court declared a mistrial. The parties reached a $55 million settlement weeks later, and the Court granted final approval on September 11, 2025. Judge P. Casey Pitts, who oversaw the trial, called the settlement an “excellent” outcome for the class.
Hernandez v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
Linda represented a certified class of more than 1,200 mortgage borrowers who lost their homes to foreclosure after Wells Fargo erroneously denied them trial mortgage modifications. The case settled in two phases for a total of $40.3 million. Judge William Alsup, who oversaw the case, praised the settlement as bringing “significant” relief to each class member and noted the amount was “greater than those approved by other courts in this district involving similar claims concerning loan modifications.”
Steven Cooper v. United States of America
Linda represented a veteran of the United States Army who alleged that he received negligent medical care at a VA facility, resulting in a delayed diagnosis of aggressive prostate cancer. The plaintiff alleged that by the time the cancer was discovered and diagnosed, it had become incurable. Linda was part of the trial team that won a $2.5 million judgment for the plaintiff.
Asokan et. al. v. American General Ins. Co.
Linda litigated this insurance and investment fraud case against American General Insurance Co, an AIG subsidiary. She represented six plaintiffs who were marketed an investment involving a specialized American General whole life policy that, when purchased through a particular defined benefit plan, would supposedly provide a multitude of tax benefits. Plaintiffs alleged that American General knew but concealed from them that its attorney had advised that these plans no longer complied with the law. Plaintiffs suffered substantial losses as a result of this alleged fraudulent concealment. The case settled for a confidential sum eight days into the jury trial.