Big change coming for CA appellate records!

On Friday, October 16, the Judicial Council approved numerous proposals affecting appellate practice, including proposal 26-115 requiring the use of appendixes in (most) civil appeals. This rule, effective Jan. 1, 2027, will drastically reduce the use of Clerk's Transcripts as the record on appeal and so presumably will increase speed and efficiency in the appellate process.

#tombstone#CT#RIP

Today's DJ also has Myron Moskovitz's column Working, Part 7: The reply brief -- A powerful appellate reply brief turns opposing counsel's arguments against them, delivers the final word and gives the court compelling reasons to reverse.

FRAP proposals

Proposed FRAP Amendments are here --  relating to service and electronic filing by self-represented litigants. Comments due Feb. 15, 2027.

5th DCA credit card fee

Service Fee for Credit Card Transactions

Effective August 3, 2026, a 2.3% service fee will apply to all credit card transactions in the Fifth District Court of Appeal.

1st Dist. Rule Changes / Top Women Lawyers

First District local rule changes: The Court has approved changes to three of the First District’s Local Rules. Local Rules 13 and 15 are amended, and Local Rule 5 is repealed. The amended and repealed rules can be found here. These changes have been published in Advance Pamphlet 14, and take effect on July 24, 2026.

The DJ has issued its annual Top Women Lawyers 2026 and it includes the usual appellate suspects: Lisa Perrochet, M.C. Sungaila, Mira Hashmall, and Kelli Sager. And the insert has Koren Bell's article Women now hold every chief judicial seat in the 9th Circuit and C.D. Cal -- For the first time in the history of the 9th Circuit and the Central District of California, every chief judicial officer is a woman.

2d Dist. takes credit cards

Effective June 4, 2026, the Second District Court of Appeal will begin accepting credit card payments online for both Los Angeles and Ventura.

Secure links to the Elavon credit card payment portal will be available on the Court's Fees & Payments page starting June 4, 2026. A 2.3% service fee will apply to all online credit card transactions.

In addition to online credit card payments, the Court continues to accept checks and money orders. Details on all accepted payment methods are available on the Fees & Payments page of the Court's website.

Please note: This online credit card payment option is separate from the credit card payment option available through the Court's e-filing platform, TrueFiling.

9th Cir. AI Sanctions & more

Bloomberg Law has Ninth Circuit Warns of AI Hallucinated Briefs in Sanctions Order

• The country’s largest federal appeals court sanctioned and suspended two attorneys who failed to disclose inaccuracies in their legal briefs came from generative AI hallucinations.
• The order imposes sanctions of $2,500 each against attorneys Mike Sethi and William Rounds of Orange County, Calif., who submitted briefs in an immigration case containing citations to opinions that didn’t exist and fabricated quotes from existing cases.
• The attorneys are also suspended from practicing before the Ninth Circuit for six months and they must send a copy of the order to their clients, opposing counsel, and presiding judge in all of their other cases.
• In February, the Fifth and Tenth circuits imposed similar sanctions against attorneys for using AI tools to draft briefs containing inaccuracies.

See Lnu v. Blanche (9th Cir. 6/3/26) No. 24-4790, 6/3/26

Law360 has 9th Circ. Suspends 2 Attys For 6 Months Over AI Hallucinations

The MetNews has Two O.C. Attorneys Suspended Relating to AI Fabricated Cites

Here's Prof. Martin's take. 

And Bloomberg also has Texas Lawyers Miscited Cases in Hair Length Policy, Judges Say -- Indicating that the 5th Circuit may be issuing sanctions.

Bloomberg Law also has California High Court Mulls Bid For More Electronic Recordings

Law360 has Court Reporter Shortage A 'Crisis,' Calif. Supreme Court Told

And Bloomberg Law has Revised Amicus Disclosure Rule Advanced by Judicial Committee

• The existing rule requires amicus curiae to disclose whether a person—other than the amicus curiae, its members, or its counsel—contributed money to fund the brief. The amendments approved Wednesday limit the disclosure requirement to pledges over $100.
• Another new provision requires an amicus that has existed for less than 12 months to state the date of its creation. The idea there is to identify organizations formed solely for purposes of influencing the litigation.
• The amendments also require amici to say more about their history, experience, and interest in the case, and how their perspective will help the court.

4th Dist. payment update

The Fourth District to Implement Online Credit Card Payment Processing

Effective May 1, 2026, the Fourth District Court of Appeal will begin accepting credit card payments online only. Divisions One (San Diego) and Two (Riverside), which previously accepted credit card payments by phone, will transition fully to online credit card payments. Division Three (Santa Ana) will begin accepting credit card payments for the first time through the new online system. Secure links to the Elavon credit card payment portal will be available on the Court’s Fees & Payments page starting May 1, 2026. A 2.3% service fee will apply to all online credit card transactions.
In addition to online credit card payments:
• Divisions One and Two continue to accept checks.
• Division Three continues to accept cash and checks.
Details on all accepted payment methods are available on the Fees & Payments page of the Court’s website.
Please note: This new online credit card process is separate from the credit card payment option available in the Court’s e‑filing platform, TrueFiling.

Cf. Back in October 2025, the 6th District announced it would accept credit card payments, including via QR code. See the Fees page here.

Amicus proposals scrapped

Reuters reports US judicial panel scraps key provision in amicus brief disclosure rule

Federal judicial rulemakers on Thursday voted to abandon a key part of a proposed rule governing the disclosure of who finances friend-of-the-court briefs after top judges expressed concern the measure could interfere with the ​privacy of advocacy groups and their members.
The unanimous vote by the U.S. Judicial Conference's Advisory Committee ‌on Appellate Rules marked the latest instance of the judiciary reducing the disclosure obligations for amicus brief filers in the long-debated measure, which was originally aimed at addressing transparency concerns.

Bloomberg Law has Judicial Panel Trims Amicus Rule Change After Privacy Worries

Law360 has Sotomayor Apologizes For 'Hurtful' Comments About Kavanaugh

 And check out CSBA's latest article: 6 Common Misconceptions About Appeal Bonds

Comments Requested on Rule Proposals

The Judicial Council just published invitations to comment on some major appellate rules changes.

SPR26-01: Appellate Procedure: Required Use of Appendixes in Civil Appeals -- The Appellate Advisory Committee proposes amending five California Rules of Court to require parties represented by counsel to use appendixes in unlimited and limited civil appeals. This proposal is designed to expedite the record-preparation process in civil appeals. This proposal originated from a recommendation of the former Chief Justice’s Appellate Caseflow Workgroup.

SPR26-02:  Appellate Procedure: Record Designation Rules and Forms -- The Appellate Advisory Committee proposes revising forms APP-001-INFO, APP-003, APP-010, APP-101-INFO, APP-103, and APP-110—and approving forms APP-003A, APP-003B, APP-003C, and APP-003D—to simplify and improve the clarity of the recorddesignation process.

 SPR26-03: Appellate Procedure: Record in Felony Appeals -- The Appellate Advisory Committee proposes amending California Rules of Court, rule 8.320, to clarify what must be included in the record in criminal felony appeals.

SPR26-04: Appellate Procedure: Clarify Rule Requiring Notice of Failure to Procure the Record -- The Appellate Advisory Committee proposes amending California Rules of Court, rule 8.140 to add an advisory committee comment providing examples of acts requiring the superior court to notify a litigant they have failed to timely do an act required to procure the record on appeal in a civil case. This proposal was prompted by a suggestion from the chair of a county bar association’s appellate law section

SPR25-05: AppellateProcedure: Extension-of-Time Order in Limited Civil, Misdemeanor, andInfraction Appeals -- The Appellate Advisory Committee proposes approving a new optional form for issuing an order on an application for an extension of time to file a brief in limited civil, misdemeanor, and infraction appeals. This proposal originated from a suggestion by the Committee on Appellate Courts of the California Lawyers Association’s Litigation Section.

SPR26-06: CEQA Actions: Implementation of Senate Bill 676 -- The Appellate Advisory Committee and the Civil and Small Claims Advisory Committee recommend amending seven California Rules of Court governing the expedited resolution of actions and proceedings brought under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to implement Senate Bill 676 (Stats. 2025, ch. 550), which provides streamlined CEQA review for certain projects to “maintain, repair, restore, demolish, or replace property or facilities damaged or destroyed by wildfire.”

SPR26-14: CivilPractice and Procedure: Statement of Decision Rules and Forms to ImplementAssembly Bill 515 -- The Civil and Small Claims Advisory Committee and the Family and Juvenile Law Advisory Committee propose amending two rules of court and approving four Judicial Council forms relating to statements of decision.

SCOTUS rules update article

Law360 has What To Know About Supreme Court's New Recusal Rules

• First, the court revised various existing disclosure rules to provide that parties must now provide the stock ticker symbols of parties involved in the case.
• Second, the rules now impose additional duties on respondents to supplement disclosures of involved parties at both the certiorari stage and the merits stage. In a brief in opposition to certiorari, the respondent is newly required to "identify any parties to the proceeding that were not identified in the petition" — "along with their respective stock ticker symbols."
• Third, in a change that does not relate directly to recusals, but does reflect the court's increasing embrace of technology, the court will now consider a document timely filed if it is filed electronically on the filing deadline — in contrast to the previous rule, which tied timeliness to paper filings.

New SCOTUS rules re stock ticker symbols etc.

Law360 has Supreme Court Adopts Rule To Suss Out Stock Conflicts

• The U.S. Supreme Court announced Tuesday that litigants will soon be required to include companies' stock ticker symbols in court documents as part of new rules aimed at helping the justices identify potential conflicts of interest.
• The new rules, which take effect March 16, call for litigants to list all involved parties, along with their respective stock ticker symbols, in the "Parties to the Proceeding" sections of their briefs, even if the party's name appears in the case caption. A new software developed by the Supreme Court will use those lists to run automated recusal checks against a list of conflicts provided by each justice, the court said in a news release.
• In addition to the new disclosure requirements, the Supreme Court announced new rules about filing deadlines Tuesday. The court changed Rule 29, which governs the filing of documents, to add that a filing is considered timely if "it is properly submitted to the court's electronic filing system on or before the last day for filing." If a document is submitted electronically, paper copies must be delivered or mailed to the Supreme Court within three days, the court added.
• See the rules here and the revisions here

Bloomberg Law's article is Supreme Court Embraces Tool to Flag Stock, Other Conflicts

Proposed amendments to CRC 8.1115, 8.1125

The Supreme Court has issued an invitation to comment on amendments to rules 8.1115 and 8.1125:

The amendments would:
(1) allow unpublished appellate opinions to be cited for certain purposes in addition to those presently allowed under rule 8.1115(b);
(2) remove language from rule 8.1115(e)(2) providing for the restoration of the precedential status of a Court of Appeal opinion in a review-granted case that has been “held” for another review-granted matter immediately upon the Supreme Court’s decision on review in the “lead” case;
(3) incorporate within rule 8.1115 principles presently articulated only in that rule’s comment regarding the citation and precedential status of published Court of Appeal opinions when review is pending before the Supreme Court, or after a decision on review by the court; and
(4) add to those who must be served with a request for depublication in the Supreme Court (see rule 8.1125(a)(5)) any person who had successfully requested that the authoring court certify the opinion for publication.

All comments must be emailed to the court at CSC2026-Comments@jud.ca.gov no later than Wednesday, March 25, 2026.

9th Cir. Proposed Rules

The 9th Circuit invites comments on proposed revisions to Circuit Rules: Circuit Rule 28-1 (Briefs, Applicable Rules); Circuit Rule 39-1 (Costs and Attorneys Fees on Appeal); and Circuit Rule 46-5 (Restrictions on Practice by Former Court Employees).

The revisions to Circuit Rule 28-1 would clarify the requirements for letter briefs ordered by the court. The revisions to Circuit Rule 39-1 would clarify the process for transferring a request for attorneys’ fees to the district court or agency.

The revision to Circuit Rule 45-6 would clarify the scope of the rule and when a motion for exemption must be filed by a former court employee.

If ultimately approved by the Court, these rules would become effective no earlier than June 1, 2026. Please direct comments to Molly C. Dwyer, Clerk of Court, at Molly_Dwyer@ca9.uscourts.gov, and Susan V. Gelmis, Chief Deputy Clerk, at Susan_Gelmis@ca9.uscourts.gov.  Comments must be submitted no later than February 23, 2026. 

Respondents' RT deposits

Superior Court of Los Angeles County Provides Clarification Regarding Respondent Deposits for Copies of Reporter’s Transcripts on Appeal
Court Clarifies Deposit Requirements and Copy Options in Unlimited Civil Cases

The Superior Court of Los Angeles County is providing clarification regarding deposits and copy options for respondents who request a copy of the Reporter’s Transcript on Appeal in unlimited civil cases.

Under the California Rules of Court, appellants who elect to use a reporter’s transcript as the record of oral proceedings must designate the proceedings to be transcribed and deposit the estimated cost of transcription with the Court. The amounts to be deposited are outlined in California Rules of Court, Rule 8.130(b)(1). Alternative options to the deposit are outlined in California Rules of Court, Rule 8.130(b)(3).

Respondents may also designate additional proceedings for inclusion in the reporter’s transcript. When respondents designate additional proceedings, they must deposit funds or utilize an alternative option as outlined in California Rules of Court, Rule 8.130(b)(1) and (3). The amount deposited by the respondent is to cover the reporter’s cost to transcribe the additional proceedings and provide an original for the reviewing court and a copy for the appellant. It does not cover the costs for the respondent to receive a copy of the reporter’s transcript on appeal.

Guidelines for Respondents Requesting Transcript Copies

Respondents requesting a copy of the Reporter’s Transcript on Appeal can place an optional deposit charged at the same rate that is charged when parties designate proceedings that have been previously transcribed, pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 8.130(b)(1):
Proceeding previously transcribed: $80 per proceeding that did not exceed three hours, or $160 per proceeding that exceeded three hours.

The optional deposit is to include all the dates designated by the Appellant and Respondent, as the Court can only order and provide a complete copy of the Reporter’s Transcript on Appeal.

Respondents who do not wish to submit the optional deposit for the Court to order and deliver to them a full copy of the Reporter’s Transcript on Appeal, or those seeking copies of select dates or individual proceedings, must reach out directly to the court reporter.

The largest trial court in the nation, the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, serves a population of almost 10 million in 36 courthouses with a jurisdiction covering over 4,000 square miles that includes 88 cities, 140 unincorporated areas and dozens of law enforcement agencies. The Court is steadfast in its mission to serve our community by providing equal access to justice through the fair, timely, and effective resolution of all cases. For more information on the Court’s current programs and services, follow the Court on X (@LASuperiorCourt), Instagram (@LASuperiorCourt), Threads (@LASuperiorCourt ), or visit the Court’s website, www.LACourt.ca.gov.

CRC 8.1115 "disapproval"

What does "disapproved" mean in CRC 8.1115(3)(2) ("After decision on review by the Supreme Court, ... a published opinion of a Court of Appeal in the matter, ... is citable and has binding or precedential effect, except to the extent it is inconsistent with the decision of the Supreme Court or is disapproved by that court.")? Well, per this published opinion from 1/5 today here, a reversal is an "unambiguous disapproval."

The fact that the court did not reach the merits of our analyses is inapposite. Having determined that the decision should be reversed because of new legislation, the court was not required to further signal its disapproval by adding a gratuitous, advisory discussion of the law that existed prior to the change.

See also on Law360 Supreme Court Term Limits Would Carry Hidden Risk

If we get that answer wrong, term limits could create a situation worse than the status quo: a permanent cadre of brand-name ex-justices leveraging their Supreme Court service in private practice, politics and business — precisely the kind of elite influence that term limit advocates say they want to curb.

And see Michael J. Broyde and Hayden Hall's Akron Law Review article: Do We Really Want Retired U.S. Supreme Curt Justices Practicing Law? (forthcoming, 2026). Available at SSRN:https://ssrn.com/abstract=5771063orhttp://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5771063

New FRAP & Circuit Rules now effective!

 Happy December 1! That means new federal appellate rules are in effect:

December 2025 9th Circuit Rule Revisions here

December 2025 FRAP Revisions here

Comment on 4th DCA's Conflict of Interest Code

The Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, is considering amendments to its Conflict of Interest Code. Anyone wishing to comment on the proposed amendments may do so in writing no later than September 29, 2025.

Comments may be submitted in writing to Brandon Henson, Clerk/Executive Officer, 750 B Street, Suite 300, San Diego, CA 92101 or by e-mail to 4dcacomment@jud.ca.gov

5th DCA Conflict of Interest Code Amendment

The Conflict of Interest Code for the Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, is being amended to add designated positions, eliminate a position title that no longer exists, and adopt gender-neutral language. Please email any comments you may have regarding this proposed amendment to: public.comments@jud.ca.gov.

What "showing the date" of service means

 

Show me the date of service!

1/1 publishes this opinion:

to clarify what “showing the date” of service means when the superior court clerk electronically serves either Notice of Entry, or a file-endorsed copy, of an appealable judgment or order. As we shall explain, under the pertinent statutes and rules, and California Supreme Court authority, a signed “certificate” of service by the clerk must be attached to, stamped on, or imbedded in the document being electronically served so the time to appeal can readily be determined from a single document.

[The MetNews has 60-Day Period for Filing Notice of Appeal Wasn’t Triggered -- Justices Say Email With Ruling Attached Wasn’t Sufficient to Constitute Service]

New CRC 10.430 on AI

Law360 has California Courts Set AI Rules Allowing Flexibility For Judges

• The council adopted the task force's recommendation that leaves policy-writing up to individual courts. It also provides parameters that touch on privacy, avoiding bias, and ensuring accuracy and disclosure, while also allowing judges to use AI "for adjudicative tasks." It also kicks judicial ethics questions to the state Supreme Court.
• Under the new policy, courts must adapt the new rule and standard into a policy, or forbid the use of artificial intelligence altogether. If a court chooses not to forbid the use of AI and not to adopt the model rules, it will have through Dec. 15, 2025, to draft and enact policies in line with the rules and standards.

The Recorder has California Judicial Council Adopts AI Rules for Judges, Court Employees | Law.com

A nationwide survey of courts released last week found court leaders are hesitant about adopting generative AI, even though many feel overwhelmed by tasks and caseloads. Just 17% of respondents said their courts used the technology, with many expressing doubt about its capabilities, costs and ability to produce error-free products.