Andrew J. Ogilvie is a graduate of Harvard University and the University of Wisconsin Law School, he was admitted to the State Bar of California in 1973 and the State Bar of Massachusetts in 1974. From 1973 to 1981, he was an associate at Pillsbury, Madison & Sutro in San Francisco, where he handled complex commercial litigation, including antitrust and trademark cases. He then became a partner at Collette & Erickson, where he handled real estate and environmental litigation. In 1987 he started his own practice and has since then specialized in consumer class actions and unfair competition cases.

Andrew represented the consumer in the three leading precedent setting cases involving automobile repossessions. In the first case, in 1998, Andrew represented the consumer in the precedent setting case of Bank of America v Lallana, in which the California Supreme Court ruled that lenders who repossess and sell automobiles lose their right to collect on the unpaid balance of the loan (the deficiency) unless they strictly comply with all of California's statutory requirements relating to the repossession and sale. 19 Cal. 4th 203.

In the same year in another auto repossession case, Andrew won an important legal point on behalf of consumers in Damian v Tamondong. In that case, the California Court of Appeal held a lender who sues its customer to collect a deficiency claim and who then abandons the lawsuit because the consumer has valid defenses, must pay the consumer's attorney fees. This enables consumers with good defenses to these deficiency claims to find lawyers to represent them in these cases. 65 Cal. App. 4th 1115.

In 2007, Andrew and Carol Brewer represented the consumers in a third automobile repossession case, Juarez v Arcadia Financial Ltd. The appellate court held that following an auto repossession, the finance company must send the consumer a statement setting forth the exact amount the consumer is required to pay in order to reinstate the loan and get the car back. Before this decision, finance companies usually provided only an estimate of the charges resulting in many consumers not being able to put together the money needed to reinstate the loan. As a result, they lost the use of their car and faced a deficiency claim. This decision caused California auto finance companies to change their procedures, giving more protection to consumers. 152 Cal. App. 4th 889.