Chambers Spotlight California 2026: Meshkat Law Recognized for International Trade

Meshkat Law, P.C. has been ranked in Chambers USA California Spotlight Guide 2026 and recognized as a leading small to medium-sized law firm offering a credible alternative to Big Law.

Meshkat Law was selected based on an independent and in-depth market analysis, coupled with an assessment of their experience, expertise and calibre of talent.

Chambers Spotlight California 2026 highlights 376 ranked firms across 9 regions and 45 distinct practice areas, marking a year-on-year increase of 218 firms and 17 practice areas.

Now featuring 175 ranking tables, this year’s edition builds on Chambers’ inaugural guide by expanding their recognition of the top small law firms California has to offer. Covering practice areas from Litigation and Mergers & Acquisitions to Media & Entertainment and Antitrust, the 2026 Guide highlights the standout firms in key practice areas.

Meshkat Law stood out for its exceptional work and is recognized in International Trade, building on its prior recognition in the Chambers USA California Spotlight Guide 2025 for the same practice area.

Kian Meshkat, principal attorney at Meshkat Law, expressed the firm’s gratitude: “Meshkat Law is honoured to be recognized by Chambers and Partners in their Spotlight Ranking for California. This acknowledgment reflects our commitment to providing top-tier legal services tailored to the unique needs of our clients and the complex matters that we help them navigate.”

This recognition underscores Meshkat Law’s position as a key player in California’s legal landscape, offering clients throughout the state access to high-quality legal representation that combines big-city expertise with local specialized support.

“Meshkat Law is delighted to be recognized by Chambers and Partners in their Ranking. This recognition is down to the quality of work that we provide our clients and the complex matters that we help them navigate.”

Background to Firm

Meshkat Law, P.C., is a boutique law firm specializing in U.S. economic sanctions and export controls matters. The firm represents clients around the world before the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), the U.S. Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS), the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), and other national security, trade, and financial‑regulatory agencies, providing pragmatic guidance for senior management on sanctions, export controls, and other cross‑border regulatory risks.

Meshkat Law offers a full‑service U.S. economic sanctions, export controls, and related national security practice:

Advising companies, financial institutions, and individuals on U.S. sanctions and export controls compliance requirements and best practices, including risk assessments, policies, and training.
Representing clients before OFAC, BIS, and other U.S. agencies in licensing, classifications, unblocking applications, voluntary self‑disclosures, and related submissions or petitions.
Advocating for clients to achieve favorable resolutions in investigations, subpoenas, enforcement actions, list removals, and related litigation.

Based in Los Angeles, Meshkat Law represents clients across the United States and around the world in U.S. sanctions, export controls, and related national security matters.

Background to Chambers and Partners

Chambers and Partners has over 30 years of US research in the Legal Market and therefore uniquely placed to identify markets where there is a significant collection of leading smaller firms, Chambers is on a mission to uncover the best legal talent wherever it may be.

Chambers is on a mission to uncover and champion the best legal talent across the United States, wherever it exists, starting with shining a spotlight on select states in 2024.

Chambers sought to identify the leading small to medium-sized law firms offering a credible alternative to Big Law. The ranked firms were selected based on independent and in-depth market analysis, coupled with an assessment of their experience, expertise and calibre of talent.

Chambers Spotlight covers Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, California, Illinois, Ohio, Texas, Georgia, Florida, North Carolina and New York State.

For questions, please contact: Kian Meshkat at meshkat@meshkatlaw.com.

Sign up for blog updates

Please note that no such content constitutes legal advice, and the legal authorities discussed in this Blog are subject to change. By subscribing, you agree with our privacy policy and our terms of service.

Iceberg illustrating hidden ownership risks under the OFAC 50 Percent Rule.

Control Without Ownership: OFAC, Sanctions, and the 50 Percent Rule

April 20, 2026

Until recently, the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) and industry practice were generally aligned on the agency’s well‑known 50 Percent Rule: entities with less than 50 percent aggregate ownership by blocked persons were not automatically blocked, and control alone by any blocked persons—while a theoretical concern—rarely dictated the sanctions compliance analysis. However, since June 2025, OFAC has increasingly signaled that control by blocked persons over an entity can itself create enforcement exposure for parties dealing with that entity and its assets. Taken together, recent guidance and enforcement actions suggest that OFAC is developing a de facto

Close‑up of a generic administrative subpoena on a desk illustrating an article about OFAC administrative subpoenas.

OFAC Administrative Subpoena: What to Do If You Receive One

March 18, 2026

Receiving an OFAC administrative subpoena from the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is an unsettling event, especially if you are an individual or company that rarely deals with sanctions issues. It is natural to worry about potential penalties, reputational harm from any publicity, or even criminal exposure, and to feel pressure to respond immediately. An OFAC administrative subpoena, however, is first and foremost a tool for gathering information: it signals that the agency is investigating transactions that may implicate U.S. sanctions, but it is not itself a finding of liability or a decision by the

Photo illustrating the difference between OFAC blocked vs rejected transactions under U.S. sanctions laws

Blocked vs Rejected Transactions Under OFAC: Key Differences (and Why They Matter)

January 20, 2026

Many companies (and individuals) believe blocked vs rejected transactions mean the same thing for purposes of U.S. economic sanctions programs administered by the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”). They do not. Confusing the two concepts can mean the difference between compliance and a violation of U.S. law in a strict liability setting. Depending on the scenario involving a sanctioned target, OFAC’s regulations may require either a blocking action or a rejection of the underlying transaction(s), with distinct legal and reporting obligations—particularly for U.S. persons. While reporting duties generally apply only to U.S. persons, non-U.S. persons

OFAC vs. BIS: Comparing the 50 Percent Rules and Compliance Implications

October 16, 2025

This article was last updated on November 7, 2025 with an Editor’s Note, but originally published on October 16, 2025. Editor’s Note: On November 1, 2025, the Trump Administration announced as part of its Deal on Economic and Trade Relations with China that it would suspend implementation of the interim final rule titled Expansion of End-User Controls to Cover Affiliates of Certain Listed Entities (i.e., the BIS Affiliates Rule discussed in this article) for one year, starting on November 10, 2025. However, unless the Affiliates Rule is amended prior to is intended future reimplementation, this article’s examination of the Rule and