Committed To Legal Excellence

Matthew Hicks

  • Attorney

MATTHEW HICKS has extensive experience in a wide range of construction and business matters. He has handled numerous trials, arbitrations, mediations, and pre-litigation dispute resolution negotiations on behalf of private companies, individuals and public entities. Mr. Hicks has represented owners, general contractors, subcontractors and sureties on both public and private works projects involving contracts, disputes and projects ranging from tens of millions of dollars down to hundreds of thousands of dollars.

In his construction law practice, Mr. Hicks has prosecuted and defended a myriad of claims including but not limited to time-related claims (e.g., delay/impact), extra work and change order claims, differing site condition claims, inadequate design and construction defect claims, indemnity claims, statutory penalty claims and attorney's fee litigation. Mr. Hicks also provides legal advice and counsel regarding the contracting process (e.g., bid and contract disputes/performance bond claims), payment enforcement/defense (e.g. payment bonds/mechanic's liens/stop notices/insurance claims), administrative issues, and general advice and counsel relative to contract preparation and negotiation. Mr. Hicks also advises clients on related construction and business issues, including preventative risk analysis, wage issues, the False Claims Act, and construction defects.

Areas of Practice

  • Construction
  • Employment
  • Business and Contract

Bar Admissions

  • California
  • U.S. District Court Central District of California


  • Loyola Law School, Los Angeles, California
    • J.D. - 1997
  • University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California
    • B.A. - 1993
    • Honors: With Academic Honors

Published Works

  • Co-Author, “Two Cases Demonstrate the Reach of Government Code Section 1090: Criminal and Civil Penalties Await the Unwary Government Official,” Lozano Smith Client News Brief, March 29, 2016
  • Author, “Recent Appellate Court Ruling Provides Guidance on Contractor’s Delay Damages and on Challenging a Performance Bond Surety’s ‘Lack Of Notice’ Defense,” Lozano Smith Client News Brief, January 15, 2016
  • Author, “Release Me: Beware Broadly Worded Release Provisions,” The Daily Journal, June 15, 2015
  • Co-Author, “Termination for Convenience, It’s All About ‘Good Faith,’” Modern Contractor Solutions, August 2012
  • Author, “Contractors, Be Sure to Maintain Your Workers’ Compensation Insurance,” The Daily Journal, June 2, 2011
  • Author, “Termination for Convenience: It’s All About ‘Good Faith,’” Construction Executive, September 2010
  • Author, “No Damages For Delay Clauses In California In the Public and Private Works Settings,” Construction Management Association of America Southern California Chapter News, Winter 2010
  • Author, “Cardinal Change and Abandonment: Applications for Contractors, Owners, Sureties,” ENR 2008 Surety Market Report, June 16, 2008


  • UCLA Extension Public Policy Program's Planning Commissioners Training Seminar, 2008
  • California CEQA Conference, Legal Ethics and California's Conflicts of Interest and Self-Dealing Laws, 2007

Honors and Awards

  • Super Lawyers-Rising Stars Edition

Professional Associations and Memberships

  • Los Angeles County Bar Association, Member
  • American Bar Association, Member

Recent News

Public Entity ADA Law

On November 19, 2021, our attorney, Matt Hicks prevailed before an en banc panel of the Ninth Circuit in the matter entitled D.D. v. Los Angeles Unified School District, __ F.4th __, Lexis 34554, WL 5407763 on the issue of whether a school student had properly exhausted his remedies prior to filing suit in federal court on Title II Americans with Disabilities Act claims. The en banc decision reversed a prior 2-1 ruling against Mr. Hicks’ client.

 On December 8, 2021, Mr. Hicks prevailed in a federal court jury trial before the Hon. George Wu on claims brought by a middle school student and her mother against his school district client for alleged retaliation in violation of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. The jury voted unanimously 8-0 for Mr. Hicks’ school district client finding no merit to the retaliation claims. On the lone “failure to accommodate” claim, the jury deadlocked 4-4. 

Construction Law

In June 2022, Mr. Bergman and Mr. Hicks successfully tried a case for its structural steel supplier client on a project at the Golden Gate Bridge through a judicial reference proceeding.  The client was awarded $3.3 million including all damages requested, interest, and attorney’s fees.