LACBA ACS brief writing program March 11, 2027

Please Join the LACBA Appellate Courts Section Program: Drafting Effective Appellate Briefs
The program will address briefing strategy and the process of drafting and revising the various components of an appellate brief. The program will include tips for improving the clarity and persuasive power of the writing.
Speakers Mitchell C. Tilner and Andrew G. Spore of Horvitz & Levy
LACBA Zoom Webinar @ noon to 1 p.m.
Thursday March 11, 2027
CLE Credit: 1.0 Hr. Appellate Specialization

Public Counsel seeks Appellate Staff Attorney

Public Counsel has an opening for a Staff Attorney (Pro Bono - Appellate Practice & Access to Justice)

JOB SUMMARY

The Staff Attorney will collaborate with Public Counsel’s legal teams to support appellate strategies, including brief writing and oral argument; lead Public Counsel’s appellate self-help clinic, which will be a primary focus of the position and is expected to operate on-site at the Court of Appeal approximately three days per week in downtown Los Angeles, with additional remote services; and support the Pro Bono Team’s efforts to strengthen and expand pro bono opportunities across the organization. Reporting to the Director of Pro Bono, the Staff Attorney will:

• Collaborate with Public Counsel’s legal teams to support appellate strategies across the organization, including direct appellate advocacy, drafting briefs, and presenting oral arguments on writs, appeals, and amicus briefs in state and federal courts
• Manage the provision of appellate self-help services at the California Second District Court of Appeal in downtown Los Angeles, which is expected to operate on-site three days per week, with a goal of expanding services to other appellate districts

Details here.

OCSC seeks appellate RA

The Superior Court of Orange County is in search of an Appellate Research Attorney. If you know an attorney who has at least 3 years of strong appellate legal research and writing experience, please share this opportunity and recruitment details with them:

• Job Title: Appellate Research Attorney
• First Round Consideration: Sunday, November 15, 2026
• Location: Orange County, CA (position is primarily remote)
• Salary: $129,313.60 - $164,777.60 annually
• Job Bulletin/Application Instructions: Appellate Research Attorney bulletin

 Interested candidates may also contact:

Monica Budd | Senior Staffing, Classification & Compensation Analyst

Orange County Superior Court Staffing, Classification & Compensation Unit 657.622.7708 (P) mbudd@occourts.org www.occourts.org

DJ profiles Justice Evans

 The DJ has Retained by voters, Evans remains persistent dissenter on Supreme Court -- Voters retained Justice Kelli Evans despite a law enforcement campaign targeting her frequent dissents. Lawyers say her limited bench experience hasn't mattered; her opinions press colleagues on racial bias, sentencing and legislative intent.

LASC process for Audio appellate records

 

Superior Court of Los Angeles County Expands Access to Electronic Recordings in Response to Family Violence Appellate Project v. Superior Court of Contra Costa County, et al., Preserving Litigants’ Right to Appeal Amid Persistent Court Reporter Shortage

New General Order Establishes Streamlined Process for Making Audio Recordings the Official Record When a Court Reporter is Unavailable in Family Law, Probate and Unlimited Civil Proceedings

The Superior Court of Los Angeles County, in response to the California Supreme Court’s recently issued unanimous opinion in Family Violence Appellate Project v. Superior Court of Contra Costa County, et al. (2026) 20 Cal.5th 564 (FVAP), has issued General Order 2026-GEN-016-00 , authorizing and establishing a process for making audio recordings the official record of family law, probate and unlimited civil proceedings when an official court reporter or official reporter pro tempore is unavailable. The newly issued General Order, effective Nov. 5, aligns with the Supreme Court’s opinion that superior courts have a “ministerial duty” to provide litigants access to a verbatim record of their proceedings when they are unable to afford or locate a private court reporter and a court-employed court reporter is unavailable due to the ongoing and persistent court reporter shortage. The new general order supersedes and vacates General Order 2024-GEN-011-00, issued in September 2024, and establishes a revised process for parties to request electronic recordings as the official record of eligible proceedings. “Justice does not end when a judge rules from the bench. It must remain open to review, and review depends on an accurate record of what was said,” stated Presiding Judge Sergio C. Tapia II. “The California Supreme Court has affirmed that a verbatim record is no luxury; it is the foundation on which the right to appeal rests. No litigant’s ability to challenge a decision affecting their family, their finances, or their livelihood should turn on whether a court reporter happened to be in the courtroom that day. Even as we work to recruit and retain the court reporters our courtrooms need, this General Order guarantees that the record will be preserved, so that the promise of appellate review and our commitment to equal access to justice are preserved for every resident of Los Angeles County.” Starting Nov. 5: How to Request an Audio Recording as the Official Record in Family Law, Probate and Unlimited Civil Proceedings if No Court Reporter Was Present Effective Thursday, Nov. 5, parties in family law, probate and unlimited civil proceedings where a court reporter was not present may request that an audio recording be the official verbatim record of their proceeding. The process works in three steps:   Step 1: The party must complete CRSU 39 . On the form, parties must state under penalty of perjury that the proceeding was not reported by an official court reporter or official reporter pro tempore and that they could not reasonably afford to hire a private court reporter or a private court reporter was not reasonably available. Step 2: The party must file the request form with the Court. Parties may efile the form or file it in person at any Clerk’s Office if they are self-represented or exempt from electronic filing. Upon the Court verifying that an official court reporter or official reporter pro tempore was not present to report the proceeding, the audio recording of the proceeding will be made available for purchase. Requests for audio recordings where a court reporter was present will be denied, and the requestor will be notified. Step 3: Within two court days of filing the form, the requesting party must visit the electronic recordings website to request the audio recording or a transcript of the recording. Instructions on how to register and purchase the audio recording or a transcript of the recording are included on the website. The current fee for audio recordings is $40. Additional fees apply for certified transcripts of audio recordings.   Under the general order, all family law, probate, and unlimited civil proceedings will be electronically recorded, but the recording will be locked, meaning the recording will not be automatically available to the public or designated as the official record of a proceeding unless requested through the process described above. When a certified court reporter, whether court-employed or privately retained, is present to report a proceeding, the recording will remain locked, and the party must request the verbatim record through the existing process of obtaining it through the court reporter. Recordings that are requested through this process will be designated as the official verbatim record of the proceeding. An audio recording is not a written transcript. Parties do not need to qualify for a court fee waiver to be eligible but must declare under penalty of perjury that the party was unable to reasonably afford to hire a private court reporter for the proceeding or was unable to secure the presence of a private court reporter due to unavailability. As the Supreme Court noted, many people who can afford routine court fees still cannot afford the high cost of a private court reporter, and courts are to be flexible in assessing a litigant’s ability to pay. Only parties and attorneys associated with the specific proceeding may request that a recording be the official record through this process. This process does not apply to non-parties to the case. Others seeking access to a recording that has not been unlocked, including members of the media, must submit a motion to the judicial officer who presided over the proceeding for access. This process does not apply to infraction, misdemeanor, CARE Court, and limited civil proceedings, where litigants may continue to access the electronic recording of their proceeding without the above-mentioned form. Litigants in felony criminal and juvenile proceedings will continue to have a court reporter present to take down the verbatim record and must request the verbatim record directly through the court reporter. More information on the new process, as well as the existing process for obtaining records for other proceedings not impacted by the General Order, can be found here. Why the Court Is Making This Change In 2018, the California Supreme Court recognized in Jameson v. Desta that the absence of a verbatim record will frequently be fatal to a litigant’s ability to have an appeal decided on the merits. That burden has fallen hardest on litigants in family law, probate and unlimited civil cases, where state law has long prohibited electronic recording in the absence of a court reporter, even as electronic recording has been used without incident for decades in misdemeanor, limited civil and infraction cases. With private court reporters costing up to $3,300 a day, a verbatim record has too often been out of reach for low-income and self-represented litigants, creating a two-tiered system of justice in which the ability to appeal depended on the ability to pay. In September 2024, after legislation that would have authorized electronic recording in all civil cases, including family law, probate and unlimited civil, failed to pass in the Legislature, the Court issued General Order 2024-GEN-011-00 to provide a constitutional safety net for litigants whose fundamental rights were at stake. That order allowed judicial officers presiding over certain family law, probate, and civil contempt proceedings to direct an electronic recording be made as the official record when no court reporter was available, but only after making a series of case-by-case findings, including that the proceeding implicated fundamental rights or liberty interests and that the requesting party could not secure a private court reporter. While the order was an important first step, its narrow scope left many litigants who could not afford a court reporter without a verbatim record. On Aug. 10, 2026, in a unanimous opinion authored by Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero, the California Supreme Court held in Family Violence Appellate Project v. Superior Court  that superior courts have a ministerial duty to provide indigent litigants with meaningful access to an official verbatim record of proceedings in all civil cases, including by means of electronic recording when an official court reporter is unavailable. The Supreme Court made clear that this duty extends beyond litigants who qualify for fee waivers to all who cannot afford to hire a private court reporter, and it recognized that a verbatim record created by electronic recording is “better than no record at all.” Because the Court’s 2024 General Order relied on a judicial officer's case-by-case findings, it is too narrow to satisfy the duty the Supreme Court described, which is why the Court has replaced it with a new general order that takes effect on Nov. 5. 2026-GEN-016-00 establishes a broader process for eligible parties to request recordings and have them designated as the official verbatim record, helping address barriers to appellate review for litigants who cannot afford private court reporting services and when a court reporter is not available. Without a verbatim record, parties may face significant challenges in appealing a court decision. Since Jan. 1, 2024, the Court has held more than 830,000 hearings in family law, probate, and unlimited civil for which no verbatim record was available. “Today's order means that every litigant in family law, probate, and unlimited civil proceedings in Los Angeles County has true access to a verbatim record of their proceeding,” said Executive Officer/Clerk of Court David W. Slayton. “Court reporters remain our first choice, and we will keep investing in bringing more of them into our courtrooms. But when one isn’t available, litigants who need a record to protect their rights now have a clear and simple path to get one.” Ongoing Efforts to Address the Court Reporter Shortage The Court deeply values its court reporter workforce and does not intend to replace them with electronic recording. Court reporters will continue to be assigned to criminal felony and juvenile proceedings, and to additional case types where available. The Court remains committed to building its court reporter ranks through robust recruitment, retention, and training efforts. This includes continuing to offer financial incentives such as signing and retention bonuses, relocation, student loan and equipment assistance, and base salary increases. The Court also created and funded its own internal training program to build its own internal pipeline of court reporters. Additionally, the Court has proactively explored other innovative approaches to modernizing the profession, such as offering remote work opportunities through the Court’s remote official court reporter pilot, authorized under Assembly Bill 3013, where 24 full-time reporters remotely report proceedings in participating courtrooms. These efforts have brought moderate success: the Court has hired 87 court reporters since October 2024, but it has not kept pace with the need. Over the same period, 74 reporters left the Court, leaving a modest net gain of just 13 court reporters over two years. With three-quarters of the Court’s reporters now eligible to retire, the Court will not be able to provide court reporters for every family law, probate and unlimited civil proceeding in which a litigant who cannot afford a private reporter requests a verbatim record. The General Order taking effect Nov. 5 will therefore ensure that the Court can uphold its ministerial duty to provide a record to family law, probate, and unlimited civil litigants who cannot afford to hire a private court reporter.

LASC Appellate Division Arg dates

LASC Appellate Division Announces 2027 Oral Argument Hearing Dates

The Appellate Division of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County has announced its 2027 oral argument hearing schedule. Hearings will generally be set at 9 a.m. for infraction and misdemeanor cases and at 1:30 p.m. for limited civil cases in the Appellate Division Courtroom Room 615 at the Stanley Mosk Courthouse, 111 N. Hill St., Los Angeles, on the following dates, subject to further order:   January     7 and 21   February    4 and 18 March        4 and 18 April           1 and 15 May            6 and 20 June           3 and 17 July            1 and 15 August        5 and 19 September  2 and 16 October       7 and 21 November    4 and 18 December    2 and 16 Remote appearances before the Appellate Division will be conducted via LACourtConnect. Participants can access the platform through the LACC welcome page.

New judges' appellate experience

The Governor's latest batch of superior court judges (23) includes many with appellate experience:

• Jesse Basbaum (Alameda County) served as a Law Clerk at the Ninth Circuit from 2012 to 2013.
• Michele Beckwith (Yolo County) served as a Law Clerk at the Ninth Circuit from 2008 to 2010.
• Jasmine Turner-Bond (Placer County) worked as a panel attorney at the Appellate Defender's Inc. from 2013 to 2017.
• Matthew Lee (Sacramento County) served as a Law Clerk at the Ninth Circuit from 2013 to 2015.
• Thomas Sprankling (San Mateo County) served as a Law Clerk at the U.S. Supreme Court from 2016 to 2017 and at the Ninth Circuit from 2012 to 2013.
• Byron Beebe (Fresno County) was a Law Clerk at the Ninth Circuit from 2007 to 2008.

Commutation of death sentences consequences

Today, Governor Gavin Newsom announced that he plans to change all California death sentences to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. The Governor's letter to the people of California is available here.

California's Constitution requires the Supreme Court's review of clemency grants to those twice-convicted of a felony. My decision to commute all death sentences therefor compel the involvement of the Chief Justice and Associate Justices in a unique inter-branch constitutional process.

So what are the appellate consequences of Gov. Newsom commuting all death sentences? Presumably all of the pending death penalty appeals at the Supreme Court will be sent to the Courts of Appeal to resolve. And perhaps that means greater bandwidth at the Supreme Court to take more cases (especially civil cases)? Can't wait to see what happens!

All justices on track to be retained, of course!

The appellate justices on the ballot are all on track for retention.

Results will be certified by December 11, 2026, but Unofficial Election Results are available here, where you can see the number and percentage of yes and no votes for each justice.

(And results for Supreme Court Justices Evans and Groban are here.)

DJ 'open house' Nov. 9 to 15!

Starting next Monday, the Daily Journal will drop its paywall for one week, opening DailyJournal.com to non-subscribers from Nov. 9 through Nov. 15.
During the Open House, readers can explore everything the publication offers subscribers, from Judicial Profiles, breaking news and expert analysis to Verdicts & Settlements, appellate decisions, DJ archives and more.
The Daily Journal is California's largest legal news organization.

Free access begins Nov. 9 at dailyjournal.com/openhouse

Moot court advice

Law.com has The Best Moot Court Aren't Rehearsals -- Arnold & Porter appellate partner Reeves Anderson says hearing "Counsel, help me understand ..." from the bench changed how he prepares for oral argument.

• Rather than treating preparation as a chance to perfect answers, Anderson treats it as a chance to uncover the questions that still need answering. .... finding blind spots.
• Judges aren't asking lawyers to recite a polished section of their brief. They are identifying something that isn't quite clicking: an assumption that hasn't been tested, a consequence that hasn't been explored or a tension that hasn't been resolved.
• The goal, he said, is not to confirm that your presentation works. It's to discover where it doesn't.
• “Appellate judges are not limited to the case in front of them. They're thinking about the next case,”
• Where do people get hung up?
• Which explanation seems obvious to you but confusing to everyone else?
• What issue keeps surfacing no matter how many times you try to redirect the discussion?
• The purpose of a moot court isn't merely to simulate questions. It's to understand how other smart people experience your argument. What confuses them? What concerns them? What do they find persuasive? What makes them skeptical?
• If the most important question in appellate advocacy starts with "Counsel, help me understand,” the best moot courts help you discover what needs explaining before you face the actual bench.

SDBA Appellate Practice Holiday Luncheon

Join the SDCBA’s Appellate Practice Section and the San Diego Appellate Inn of Court for their 2026 Annual Appellate Holiday Luncheon, on Dec. 18 noon to 2 p.m., returning to the University Club atop Symphony Towers for an afternoon of conversation, connection, and holiday celebration with San Diego’s appellate legal community. Details here.

This year’s luncheon will feature a fireside chat between California Supreme Court Justice Kelli Evans and Fourth District, Division One, Justice David Rubin. They will offer insights from their experiences on California’s appellate courts and throughout their distinguished legal careers. The program will provide a unique opportunity for appellate practitioners, members of the judiciary, and the broader legal community to hear directly from Justice Evans and Justice Rubin while coming together to celebrate another year of appellate practice in San Diego.

LACBA ACS Holiday Mixer 12/7

"An evening of good company and seasonal cheer to close out the year!" The LA County Bar Appellate Courts Section 2026 Holiday Mixer will be Dec. 7. Details & registration here.

Be sure to vote!

The Recorder has 'I Have No Idea:' A Ballot Crowded With Justices Leaves Voters With Lots of Questions -- Gov. Gavin Newsom's binge of appointments to the courts of appeal has created ballots filled with judicial candidates often unknown to voters.

• The sheer number of names has crowded ballots and voting materials. Los Angeles County voters alone will see the names of 18 courts of appeal justices, two Supreme Court justices—Joshua Groban and Kelli Evans—and eight candidates vying in runoffs for four superior court seats.
• State voters have been asked to retain a combined 62 courts of appeal justices across six districts. That’s the highest number in the last five general elections, and it means the future of 58% of intermediate court seats in California are in voters’ hands this year.
• Californians do not elect their appellate justices, leaving the task to the governor and the almost always approving Commission on Judicial Appointments.
• Newly appointed justices appear uncontested on the next gubernatorial election ballot and then again when their offices’ 12-year terms expire.
• Newsom has gone on a judicial-appointing binge during his last year in office. Just this year, the governor has filled 17 court of appeal vacancies. Some of the justices on the ballot have been on the bench for only a matter of months. Some have yet to take the bench as they wait for the current officeholders to retire in January.
• No California mid-level court of appeal justice has lost a retention election since the process started in 1934, according to the state’s Assembly Elections Committee.

Bloomberg Law has Exercise Your Constitutional Rights to Protect the Rule of Law by 61 former federal judges (of Keep Our Republic’s Article III Coalition):

We encourage all citizens to exercise their constitutional right to vote this Election Day and to elect candidates who will fulfill their role as a check on the other branches of government. We urge Americans to contact their representative in Congress and their two senators, strongly encouraging them to apply the Constitution’s existing safeguards and where appropriate to erect new statutory ones.

There may well be an approaching tipping point beyond which it is too late. The time for citizens to speak up and act is now.

retired J.Sanchez to JAMS

 

Hon. Maurice Sanchez joined JAMS as a neutral in Orange County.
Sanchez brings more than 40 years of legal experience to JAMS as a civil litigator, corporate counsel, trial judge and appellate justice. Having served as an advocate, client representative and judicial decision-maker, he offers parties a practical understanding of litigation risk, legal strategy and the business realities that often drive settlement decisions and case outcomes. Justice Sanchez served on the California Superior Court before his appointment to the California Court of Appeal in 2022. As an appellate justice, he authored published and unpublished opinions addressing complex civil, commercial and public law matters. His experience on both the trial and appellate courts provides him with a unique perspective on the strengths, weaknesses and risks that shape disputes at every stage of litigation. Before taking the bench, Justice Sanchez spent three decades in large and midsize law firms, primarily as a partner handling business and commercial disputes.

CJA hearings for Goldman & Hofmann 11/16 @ 2 p.m.

The Commission on Judicial Appointments will hold in-person hearings in San Francisco on November 16, starting at 2:00pm, to consider the appointments of Brian Goldman and Adam Hofmann to the Court of Appeal, First Appellate District. Details here.

1st District pro temp update / J.M.Miller retires

These current judicial officers are assigned to temporarily fill judicial vacancies at the First District:

• Judge Alexandra Robert Gordon, of San Francisco Superior Court, will be sitting pro tempore in Division Four until November 30, 2026.
• Justice Marla J. Miller (retired) of the First District Court of Appeal, will be sitting pro tempore in Division Two until December 2, 2026.
• Judge Andrew E. Sweet, of Marin County Superior Court, will be sitting pro tempore in Division Two until December 4, 2026.

Yes, that means, in case you missed it, Marla J. Miller was a judge for Division 2 of the First District (assuming office in 2014) who retired on October 2, 2026.

Another retirement you may have missed: Justice Rosendo Pena retired from the Fifth District back in June.

"AI have a question, counsel..."

Law.com has Reading the Bench: How Appellate Lawyers Are Using AI in Oral Argument Prep -- Appellate lawyers are using AI to study judges’ questioning styles, test answers and sharpen their oral argument prep. But they’re not ready to trade human moot courts for a chatbot.

Law.com also has A Law Professor Reflects on 54 Years of Arguing Before the Supreme Court -- In an interview with Law.com, law professor Eric Schnapper reflects on a 54-year Supreme Court advocacy career as he prepares for his 25th high court appearance Monday.

He calls himself the "last attorney standing to argue before Justice William O. Douglas," who was appointed by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1939 and retired in 1975. Eighty-four-year-old law professor Eric Schnapper will argue at the U.S. Supreme Court for the 25th time on Monday, his latest appearance in a 54-year high court career.

THE Appellate social event of the year?

The DJ covers Wednesday's CSCHS event at the California Club in Retired justices reflect on the balance between personal beliefs and judicial duty -- Former California Supreme Court Justice Martin J. Jenkins and retired appellate Justice Arthur Gilbert discussed judicial independence, legal interpretation and the importance of consensus at the California Supreme Court Historical Society's annual dinner.

This event appears to be the hands-down winner for "appellate bash of the year," in which Justice Groban interviewed retired Justices Jenkins and Gilbert. Appellate justices from the Supreme Court and all corners of the state attended (listing them all would essentially be listing dozens and dozens), and the appellate bar was well-represented, of course. If you're reading this blog and missed this event ... well, maybe you'll come next year?!

3 more election profiles: Goorvitch, Sapp, Bermudez

The DJ presents 3 more appellate justice election profiles:

Goorvitch brings writs, criminal, regulatory experience to appellate bench -- Justice Stephen I. Goorvitch, seeking an eight-year term on the 2nd District Court of Appeal, brings experience deciding environmental writs, criminal cases and disputes over government regulatory authority.

A graduate of UC Berkeley's Boalt Hall School of Law, Goorvitch began his career as a staff attorney in the Securities and Exchange Commission's Division of Enforcement. He clerked for federal trial and appellate judges before joining O'Melveny & Myers LLP.

Newsom's legal chief, never a judge, seeks 12-year justice term -- David B. Sapp, Gov. Gavin Newsom's legal affairs secretary who helped lead California's National Guard lawsuit against President Donald Trump, seeks a 12-year 3rd District term despite never having been a judge.

As Gov. Gavin Newsom's legal affairs secretary, Sapp worked with the attorney general's office on every phase of Newsom v. Trump (2025), from gathering evidence and briefing to trial preparation and appeals, he wrote in his application for a seat on the 3rd District Court of Appeal in Sacramento. Sapp has never been a judge or argued in an appellate court and has tried four civil cases, all bench trials or writ proceedings.

Bermudez brings access-to-justice focus from Imperial County bench

Before becoming a judge, she spent about a decade representing school districts and public agencies, first as an associate at Best Best & Krieger LLP and then as a partner at Garcia Hernández Sawhney & Bermudez LLP, handling education, labor, employment and public agency matters. She worked for two years as a complaint resolution officer in UC San Diego's Office for the Prevention of Harassment and Discrimination. The youngest of five children of parents who immigrated from Mexico, Bermudez grew up in the Imperial Valley. She and her two older sisters all became lawyers. Nadia Bermudez, is now with Meyers Nave in San Diego. The eldest, federal Judge Ruth Bermudez Montenegro, administered her Superior Court oath in 2018.