"This is a shotgun-approach appeal in which trustee [] and his attorney [] present 17 separate arguments against an order requiring them to jointly pay $16,060 in sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7." Uh oh, not off to a good start for the appellants... The court then lists out the 17 arguments, and notes that 11 of them "have not been preserved for appeal." Then the court shoots down the remaining claims on the merits, finding that one was forfeited. And the court finds that Appellants' post-trial motions were defective because those expressly apply to judgments after a trial; such motions are not procedural vehicles for challenging the sanctions order at issue. In short, an appellate train wreck, and the opinion is ordered forwarded to the State Bar...
This calls to mind the "Litmus Test: Number of Issues in the Brief" in Judge Aldisert's classic Winning on Appeal, in which he explains that raising 3 issues means "presumably arguable points," four issues: "probably arguable," five issues: "perhaps arguable," six issues: "probably no arguable points. The lawyer has not made a favorable impression," seven points: "presumptively, no arguable points. The lawyer is at an extreme disadvantage, with an uphill battle all the way," eight or more points, "strong presumption that no point is worthwhile. To the lawyer: Go home. Do not pass 'Go.'"
A new (3d) edition of this essential book will be coming out soon...
Posts
