Amicus organizations injecting themselves into appellate cases obviously want the side they support to win. But win or lose, one benefit of amicus participation is getting the organization's name listed in the court's opinion, right? Since 2000, the California Style Manual (section 5:19) has mandated that if an amicus brief is filed, the court's published opinion must list the name of the amicus, the name of amicus counsel, and the party on whose side the amicus is supporting. That seems pretty clear and obvious.
But this was not always the case! Earlier versions of the CSM did not require naming the amicus! Thus, counsel listings in older cases would simply say something like "Jane Attorney, as amicus curiae on behalf of appellants"--with no indication of who the actual amicus was. (See, e.g., 1 Cal.2d 138, 639, 675, 703.) So when did amicus names begin appearing? It seems that it wasn't until 1998 that courts began to start including the names (e.g, 69 Cal.App.4th 166), albeit inconsistently throughout 1998. By 1999, naming amici appears to have become standard practice. And by 2000, when the CSM 4th edition came out, it became mandated.
[This 100% nerd-certified appellate post is brought to you in response to a reader question. If you have a question of an appellate nature--no matter how geeky, esoteric, arcane, or completely lacking any practical meaning or application--please feel free to submit it, and we'll take a shot at answering it! We're Appellate Lawyers--We care about minutiae!(TM)]
Posts
