Trial Counsel for Crypto, Technology, and Complex Commercial Disputes

From pre-suit strategy through trial, appeal, and enforcement, Astraea Counsel handles complex commercial, shareholder, and digital asset disputes with the rigor of Big Law and the responsiveness of a boutique. Our litigation practice is led by a former judicial law clerk from California's busiest complex court, trained at Simpson Thacher & Bartlett—and built on AI-native infrastructure that lets a small firm manage discovery, research, and document review at a scale that traditionally required associate teams.

Schedule a Consultation View All Practice Areas

What We Do

Trial-tested litigation, judicial-insider perspective, and AI-native discovery infrastructure under one roof.

Complex Commercial & Shareholder Disputes

Breach of contract, commercial fraud, and fiduciary duty claims
Shareholder derivative actions and direct claims
Books-and-records demands (Del. § 220 / Cal. Corp. Code § 1601)
Oppression, squeeze-out, and involuntary dissolution
Partnership and joint venture disputes
Delaware Chancery and California complex court proceedings

Crypto & Digital Asset Litigation

Token and digital asset fraud claims
Personal jurisdiction over foreign blockchain defendants
Exchange disputes, custodial breach, and account recovery
Smart contract disputes and protocol liability
Crypto asset tracing and cross-border enforcement
Class actions and mass disputes in digital asset matters

Trial & Appellate Advocacy

First-chair trial work in state and federal court
State and federal appellate briefs (opening, answering, reply)
Writ petitions and interlocutory appeals
Oral argument preparation and presentation
Post-trial motions and preservation of error
Appellate strategy consulting for trial counsel

Why Founders Choose Us for Litigation

Judicial Chambers Insight

Brandon spent three years writing rulings in California's busiest complex litigation court before he ever wrote a brief from the other side of the bench. That perspective shapes every motion, every argument, and every theory-of-the-case decision he makes—because he has seen, firsthand, what judges actually weigh and where even experienced litigators routinely miss.

AI-Native Discovery & Document Review

Most small firms cannot manage discovery in cases involving millions of documents. We built the infrastructure that lets us—citation verification pipelines, multi-agent research and drafting workflows, document review at scale, matter intelligence—in-house, battle-tested across active matters. The leverage that traditionally required associate teams now flows through our system.

Trial-Tested, Direct Access

Brandon has first-chaired a books-and-records trial in the Delaware Court of Chancery, taken and defended depositions in multi-party disputes, and argued before the Ninth Circuit. Simpson Thacher trained him to manage litigation at scale; building this firm taught him to do it without an associate buffer between you and the lawyer running your case. He was included in the 2027 edition of Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch in America for Commercial Litigation.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can a small firm handle complex commercial litigation against a Big Law opponent?

Yes—when the small firm has the right infrastructure. Astraea Counsel's litigation practice is led by an attorney trained at Simpson Thacher & Bartlett who managed discovery teams of 20-30 attorneys on matters involving millions of documents. We replicate that capability through AI-native infrastructure rather than associate pyramids: document review at scale, citation verification, multi-agent research, and matter intelligence systems built in-house. The result is Big Law-caliber capability at boutique rates and turnaround speed.

How does AI-assisted discovery and document review actually work in modern litigation?

AI-assisted discovery uses large language models and agent workflows to triage, classify, and surface documents from large productions—privilege flagging, redaction triage, hot-document identification, deposition exhibit extraction. The AI does not replace attorney judgment on what matters; it removes the bottleneck of having to put eyes on every page. In a million-document production, that is the difference between a manageable case and a case that requires associate teams. California courts have begun addressing the discovery rules that govern AI-assisted review, and attorneys handling AI-managed productions need to understand both the technology and the procedural framework.

What is a books-and-records demand, and when do shareholders use one?

A books-and-records demand is a statutory shareholder right to inspect a corporation's records—under Delaware General Corporation Law § 220 or California Corporations Code § 1601—typically used to investigate suspected mismanagement, breach of fiduciary duty, or self-dealing before filing a derivative action. The demand must state a "proper purpose" and identify the specific records sought. Books-and-records litigation is often the first move in a larger governance dispute and can shape the strategy and viability of any subsequent derivative or direct claims.

When does crypto litigation belong in California state court versus federal court versus Delaware Chancery?

The forum depends on the claims, the parties, and the relief sought. Federal court is appropriate when claims arise under federal securities laws (Section 10(b), Section 12), when there is diversity jurisdiction with claims exceeding $75,000, or when a federal question dominates. California state court handles state securities claims, common-law fraud, and consumer protection claims, with the complex divisions in Los Angeles and other counties handling large-scale matters. Delaware Chancery hears governance and fiduciary disputes for Delaware-incorporated entities—including many DAO LLCs and crypto entities—and offers expert judges and a developed body of law on shareholder rights and director duties. The right forum is often dispositive of strategy.

How much does complex commercial litigation cost, and how is it typically billed?

Costs depend heavily on case complexity, document volume, the opposition's resources, and procedural posture. Hourly billing is the default for litigation; flat-fee arrangements are uncommon for active disputes because the scope is unpredictable. At Astraea Counsel, we offer Big Law-caliber work at boutique rates—our AI-native infrastructure means we are not billing associate teams to do work the system handles. We also discuss alternative arrangements where appropriate: blended rates for ongoing litigation portfolios, capped fees for discrete phases (motion to dismiss, summary judgment), and contingency or hybrid arrangements for plaintiff-side matters with strong merits.

Insights on Litigation

Thought Leadership

When the SEC Won't Act: Private Litigation Options for Crypto Investors

Read Article Case Study

DAO Liability After Lido: What the Court Actually Held and Why You Need a Legal Wrapper

Read Article Thought Leadership

AI Agent Liability in DeFi: Who's Responsible When the Bot Trades?

Read Article

Led by

Brandon Orewyler

Founder & Principal

Brandon Orewyler co-founded Astraea Counsel to bring real litigation firepower to crypto and tech disputes. As a former judicial law clerk who's tried cases in courts across the country from filing through appeal, he knows how to advance novel arguments and how to get judges to agree when it matters the most.

Full Profile →