"Retired Law Professor Launches Appellate Boutique"

That's the title of a story in today's DJ about former Golden Gate Professor Myron Moskovitz and his new law firm (Moskovitz Appellate Team), a seven-lawyer outfit that includes retired justices James Ardaiz, Cris Cottle, and William Stein. "We're basically a team of insiders, people who have worked in the court system, who know how they function and what the courts are looking for," Moskovitz said, also stating that his firm is "unique because some of the big firms have appellate judges on staff, but they're accessible only to the big corporations. I'm going to be able to offer this to the little guy."
[9/10 update: The Recorder's coverage is Ex-Law Prof Opens Appellate Shop, noting "Three former appellate clerks will support the justices—Kathy DeSantis, former managing attorney for the Fifth District; Donald Horvath, former head writs clerk for the Fifth District; and Michael Brodsky, former clerk for Ninth Circuit Judge Dorothy Nelson."]

Also of note:
Ninth Circuit Holds Annual Law Clerk Orientation

And today's print version of the DJ runs an obituary for Hillel Chodos on page 3.

Who wants to be known as an "appellate lawyer"? Apparently not the lawyers listed in the DJ's Supplement of "Top 100 Lawyers in California." Each honoree was given at least two lines to list any and all practice areas, but only one (GDC's Ted Boutrous) included any sort of appellate designation (i.e., "Civil Rights, Appellate & Constitutional Law, Class Action").

And here's something you don't see every day--"We conclude this matter is proper for disposition by memorandum opinion in accordance with California Rules of Court standard 8.1."--but maybe we should see this more often? What is "standard 8.1" you ask?

2015 California Rules of Court

Standard 8.1. Memorandum opinions

The Courts of Appeal should dispose of causes that raise no substantial issues of law or fact by memorandum or other abbreviated form of opinion. Such causes could include:

(1)An appeal that is determined by a controlling statute which is not challenged for unconstitutionality and does not present any substantial question of interpretation or application;

(2)An appeal that is determined by a controlling decision which does not require a reexamination or restatement of its principles or rules; or

(3)An appeal raising factual issues that are determined by the substantial evidence rule.