Thomas J. Nolan

In 1971, less than one year after graduating in the second class of students from UC Davis School of Law, Tom Nolan became the lifelong advocate of one of his earliest clients. The case which tied them together, known as the Chino Escape Case, involved a group of activists who set out to rescue one of their members from a prison transport vehicle. During the rescue, a guard was shot and killed. Tom, hired to defend those involved, became close to one man in particular. This man, R.S., was ultimately convicted of murder in the first degree and given an indeterminate sentence of six years to life despite maintaining his innocence. For the next 47 years, Tom would fight for R.S. to be released on parole and, in 2018, R.S. finally left the gates of San Quentin a free man.

Tom’s dedication to R.S. bookended a career practicing criminal defense law defined by a resolve to always speak out for justice. During that early trial, Tom found a mentor in Charles R. Garry, the renowned civil rights attorney known as the ‘Streetfighter in the Courtroom.’ While working together on the case, Tom witnessed how Garry centered his clients’ stories and life circumstances with moral forcefulness. Garry made it clear how economic class, race, and opportunity skewed judicial outcomes. Tom was inspired to do the same.

Before meeting Garry and developing his own style of advocacy, Tom knew that he was interested in becoming an attorney. Growing up in California’s Central Valley, Tom’s parents encouraged him to pick his battles carefully. Tom, however, continued to become incensed by injustices big and small. As he matured, Tom’s innate drive to defend equality led him to law school. As an attorney, Tom continued to insist that the driving principle of the criminal justice system, innocent until proven guilty, must be protected by the fair treatment of the accused in all circumstances.

By taking immense personal investment in each of his clients, Tom became one of the most influential criminal defense attorneys in California and the nation. Many of his cases are notable, some for the innovations that Tom introduced, others for the nature of the criminal charges. At the heart of each case, however, Tom always placed the individual, their complexities, their humanity, and their rights. He developed a unique ability to take a detail, seemingly insignificant, and build it into a story. At every opportunity throughout his remarkable career, he looked for ways to highlight an issue that would not only help his client, but other defendants as well. Even so, Tom’s clients always took precedence. One case that cemented Tom’s approach was the Tanner case.

Fighting for the Individual

From a distance, the Tanner case appeared to be a cut and dry instance of armed robbery. A man enters an East Palo Alto store and robs the clerk at gunpoint. The details, however, were far more strange. Harold Tanner, the defendant, was the former security guard of the store. He entered with an unloaded gun, took about $40 from the till, and then instructed the clerk to sound the alarm and notify police. He was arrested soon after while calling himself in to the police. Tanner explained that he simulated a robbery to test the store’s protocol and possibly persuade the store’s owner to renew security services with Tanner’s employer.

Tom took on Tanner’s case by court appointment and presented the facts at trial before a sympathetic San Mateo County judge. Tanner was found responsible for the robbery but was sentenced to probation rather than prison. Just prior in 1975, however, the California Legislature had passed a law requiring prison terms for all cases where a gun had been used in the commission of a crime. The district attorney appealed Tanner’s sentence for failing to meet the standard of this new law, and the case became ground zero for an ensuing battle over the constitutionality of the ‘use a gun, go to prison’ mandate and the preservation of judicial discretion.

As Tanner’s case moved to the appellate phase, Tom stayed on. For Tom, it was fundamental that each individual have the facts of their case weighed and considered. Justice was in the particulars, not a prescription formula. When the Court of Appeal reversed the trial judge’s decision, Tom brought the case to the California Supreme Court. There, the court reversed course, ruling that the ‘use a gun, go to prison’ law did in fact represent an unconstitutional infringement on the power of the judicial branch to exercise discretion. This decision sparked furor among the state’s conservatives and created a backlash for members of the Supreme Court. The press was following the events closely and political fevers were running hot. In an unusual twist, the court ordered a re-hearing.

Tom came to realize that the political interest in Tanner’s case would overshadow the legal issues, so he focused all of his efforts on achieving justice for Harold Tanner himself. In the packed Sacramento courtroom, Tom addressed the justices. He urged them not to lose sight of the man behind the storm that had come to shadow the case. In an emotional appeal, he asked those on the bench to find a way to make sure that our system of justice does not prevent us from reaching down, taking a person, bringing them up, and giving them justice. When the decision was published, the court reversed their original vote and declared the mandatory sentencing law was to be upheld without exception. However, one exception was still made. Harold Tanner was not required to go to prison. Tom won the hard-fought battle to keep his client out of prison.

Protecting People from Corporate Interests

In the 1980s, Tom became well known for his high-profile representations of a member of the Billionaire Boys Club and the Synanon Organization, a self-help group turned religion that was facing criminal charges across the country. In his work with Synanon, Tom proved himself capable of managing complex litigation in the midst of immense media scrutiny and suspicion. By the 1990s, however, a new type of criminal case was emerging in Silicon Valley. In one of the first cases of its kind, a powerful company, semiconductor giant Intel Corp., brought allegations of criminal theft of trade secrets against a competitor to maintain dominance in the market. The competitor in this case was ULSI, a computer chip start-up run by George Hwang.

Hwang’s goal at ULSI was to develop a more efficient, effective, and affordable co-processor to Intel’s 386 chip. At the time, the only co-processor on the market was Intel’s own.

When Intel discovered that ULSI was finding success in designing a rival product, they took interest.

Just as ULSI’s product was being prepared for manufacture, criminal allegations from Intel against ULSI halted the project in its tracks. When Tom took Hwang on as a client, it was clear that Intel intended to maintain a monopoly on the co-processor market for as long as possible.

The criminal case accusing ULSI of theft of trade secrets was a part of that business strategy. Every minute Hwang was out of the market benefited Intel. Tom dove into the case to defend Hwang from an aggressive prosecution which lasted four years before culminating in a four-month jury trial. After those four months of trial, it took members of the jury only three hours to acquit Hwang of all charges.

After Hwang’s case, Tom became established as the preeminent attorney in criminal theft of trade secret litigation in California. One noteworthy case that quickly followed Hwang’s involved software companies Borland and Symantec. It was common practice in the Valley for executives to move from one job to another. If a company accused a former employee of taking valuable information to their new employer, the dispute was typically handled with civil lawsuits. However, when Eugene Wang left his position at Borland International Inc. for a position at rival company Symantec Corp., Borland pushed criminal charges.

The case raised questions about what information or ideas an individual could take with them to a new job and in what ways one’s career path could be restricted by a former employer. Whether these were questions for a criminal court, however, was uncertain at best. When Tom came to the case, he discovered a concerning fact that, for him, proved altogether that corporate interests and the criminal justice system should not mix. Borland had paid $13,000 to the investigating police department to foot the bill for expert analysis that had been performed. Essentially, Borland was underwriting the cost of the prosecution.

Tom argued that allowing private funding for a criminal prosecution went against the fundamental principle that the criminal justice system is supposed to represent the interests of the public and not the interests of a wealthy and powerful corporate sponsor. The trial court agreed, and the case was appealed, becoming another closely followed Silicon Valley legal battle. For Tom, it was paramount to protect Wang’s right to equal justice and a trial unbiased by the interests of a private corporation. After oral arguments before the California Supreme Court, the prosecution backed down and dismissed the charges in an apparent attempt to prevent the Court from deciding the issue. Even so, the Supreme Court issued an opinion unanimously holding that private corporations cannot fund public prosecutions.

In addition to his work on criminal theft of trade secret cases, Tom also took on economic espionage cases, including the first ever to go to jury trial in the United States. In that case, Tom and Daniel Olmos represented Lan Lee, an American citizen accused of stealing the designs for a superfast computer chip to set up their own company with the financial backing of a venture capital arm of the Chinese government. After a long deliberation, the jury acquitted or hung on all charges, unconvinced that trade secrets had been stolen or that the Chinese government was to be benefitted. Before the start of a retrial, the government dismissed all remaining charges.

A Humanistic Approach to Defending Against the Death Penalty

When Robert Nelson, a small-time drug dealer, was arrested and charged with two execution-style murders with special circumstances, it seemed certain he would be found guilty and sentenced to death. Tom knew that to defend Nelson he was going to have to dig deep. Traditionally, Tom would have used a private investigator to bring him information about the case and the people in it. A private investigator, however, would not highlight Nelson’s humanity in a way that might just convince the jury to spare his life, so Tom turned to a journalist.

Tom had first become familiar with Lacey Fosburgh through her writing. He was especially impressed by the way Fosburgh had created a sympathetic portrait of a New York murderer in her book, Closing Time. When Tom approached Fosburgh requesting her help in uncovering and presenting Nelson’s character, she agreed. Fosburgh helped create a portrait of Nelson that included his personal history and family life, obsessions, aspirations, hopes, and flaws. Tom’s instinct that a journalist’s skill in searching for a person’s motivations and nuances would provide a compelling narrative had proved correct.

After the trial and the verdict was reached, members of the jury reportedly lamented they were not given the option of imposing a lesser sentence than life without the possibility of parole. It was also reported that some jurors had questioned whether Nelson was even guilty of one of the murders. Tom’s approach had been so effective, they hardly considered imposing the death penalty. Today, it is standard practice to create detailed and lengthy social histories for all defendants facing capital charges.

Professional Legacy

Tom founded the firm that became Nolan Barton Olmos & Luciano alongside attorneys Andrew Parnes, Charles Constantinides, and, later, Mike Armstrong. In 1977, the building at 600 University Avenue, Palo Alto, became the firm’s official home and remains so to this day. Throughout his career, Tom became the mentor and friend to generations of lawyers, law clerks, and office staff, instilling in those around him the firm belief that the rights of all people are protected when the rights of the accused are upheld.

While Tom had the opportunity to represent clients across California, Arizona, Nevada, Oklahoma, Oregon, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Washington D.C., and in France, his focus was always on representing local clients in the Silicon Valley region. Alongside his efforts in the courtroom, Tom also made an impact in the community’s classrooms teaching Advanced Criminal Practice to Stanford Law School students. For 25 years, Tom greatly enjoyed the flow of the classroom and the opportunity for intellectual challenge. One of Tom’s first students, Dan Barton, would go on to join the firm and become Tom’s longest-standing professional partner.

Some of Tom’s affiliations included serving as an ACLU Board Member, as President of California Attorneys for Criminal Justice, and Fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers. He was repeatedly recognized for his outstanding legal performances and consistently rated a top attorney from the 1980s and onward. At the core of his success, however, was his singular commitment to his clients and the importance of achieving a fair trial.

Tom practiced law for just over 50 years before his death in 2021. During those 50 years, he put his heart on the line for justice with an unmatched persistence and love for his work. Nothing less would have taken him so far.