Today's DJ has PJ Gilbert's column titled FACTS -- It is redundant to refer to facts as true. It is illogical to refer to facts as false. If they are false, they are not facts. Facts simply are.
Our life experiences, predilections, and prejudices can lead us unconsciously to skew the facts that lead to a certain result. Judges must keep this in mind and carefully state the facts with scrupulous care. And practitioners, yearning for a result, must be careful to state the facts accurately even when they may not seem to lead to a hoped-for result. Acknowledging this in the legal discussion section of the brief gives the practitioner the opportunity to interpret those facts in the context of case and statutory authority in a more favorable light to the client’s cause.
The MetNews has C.A. Scolds Attorney Who, in His Brief, Accused Three Judges of Corruption about this unpub from 2/1 here, which has an "End Word" section:
We regret we must admonish Poe’s counsel about the inappropriate personal attacks in his briefs on the trial judges. When briefing an appeal, an ad hominem attack on the trial judge is not only unpersuasive, but also unseemly. (Niles Freeman Equipment v. Joseph (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 765, 794795; Fink v. Shemtov (2010) 180 Cal.App.4th 1160, 1176.) We remind counsel he is an officer of the court, and has a duty to “maintain the respect due to the courts of justice and judicial officers.” (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 6068, subd. (b); see People v. Massey (1955) 137 Cal.App.2d 623, 626.) We do not condone Poe’s counsel’s lack of professionalism.
And see this unpub from 4/3, where no appellate sanctions were imposed, but the court noted:
Attorney [X] cannot blindly rely on the word of former counsel in assessing the appealability of the order at issue. Attorney [X] owes an independent duty to this court which cannot be delegated to someone else.
Posts
