"Civility, Sexism, and Persuasive Brief Writing"

2/4 publishes this opinion here today, noting "We publish to draw attention to draw attention our concluding note on civility, sexism, and persuasive brief." See pp. 9-11. "we conclude the brief’s opening paragraph reflects gender bias and disrespect for the judicial system." "Objectifying or demeaning a member of the profession, especially when based on gender, race, sexual preference, gender identity, or other such characteristics, is uncivil and unacceptable. Moreover, the comments in the brief demean the serious business of this court."

We conclude by extending our thanks to the many talented lawyers whose excellent briefs and scrupulous professionalism make our work product better and our task more enjoyable. Good brief-writing requires hard work, rigorous analysis, and careful attention to detail. Moreover, we recognize “every brief presents opportunities for creativity— for imaginative approaches that will convey the point most effectively.”[fn] We welcome creativity and do not require perfection. We simply did not find the peculiar style and content of this brief’s opening paragraph appropriate, helpful, or persuasive.

[How appellatey is this opinion? Well, it's an appellate opinion from (and about) a judge who is now an appellate justice, which cites two recent articles co-authored by other appellate justices!]
[MetNews article is here. 11/26/19 update: The Recorder has ‘Irrelevant and Sexist’: Appellate Judges Confront Courtroom Sexism in Legal Brief; 11/27/19 update: The DJ has Attorney chided for calling female judge ‘attractive’ in a brief]

Note also that this case is part of a SLAPP-o-rama festival today! Other anti-SLAPP cases issued this afternoon are here, here, and here. And here. And here.