The California Appellate Law Podcast

Want to know why bad AI cites really bother the courts? Jeff and Tim discuss two recent fake-AI-cites cases imposing sanctions and State Bar referrals, and draw this conclusion: It’s not that AI is bad at law—in one of these cases, the court noted that none of the AI mistakes even went in the direction of helping the offending party. Rather, the problem is that AI is just bad at citing and quoting...

The California Supreme Court’s long-awaited "Taking Offense" decision on gender pronouns in elder care facilities introduces a new “captive audience” exception to the First Amendment. Tim worries this new judicial carve out may creep to other forums; Jeff is unperturbed. Tim also shares insights from the Federalist Society National Conference, before examining a significant appellate-fee...

Jimmy Azadian is often in the room when federal judges get together to share their personal concerns about the job. When judges are asked to come speak to a group, Jimmy reports that top of mind are the recent threats to judges and the courts—whether from armed vigilantes, protesters, students, or senators. Jimmy, Tim, and Jeff then turn to some recent SCOTUS and 9th Circuit trends: Standing Doctr...

AI Reshapes Legal Practice: ClioCon 2025 Delivers a Wake-Up Call Jeff Lewis reports from the 2025 Clio Cloud Conference in Boston. Day 1 was encouraging, but Jeff reports feeling Day 2 as a “gut punch”: within about 5-10 years, many fundamentals of legal practice will be unrecognizable. Here are a few ways legal industry leaders suggest you can skate to where the puck is going—rather than finding...

Few lawyers and LRW instructors write and think more about AI than Professor Jane Woods of Mizzou Law, who offers this most important AI advice: If you haven’t read the case, don’t cite the case. The Boies Schiller Cautionary Tale: That would have saved Boies Schiller’s bacon. We discuss the high-profile Scientology/Masterson appeal, and whether the Court of Appeal is going to strike plaintiff’s r...

Just a couple years ago when we talked with Ernie Svenson, the attorney who talks tech fluently, AI was not even a thing. Now in late 2025, it’s the only thing. Ernie joins Tim and Jeff to discuss the rapidly evolving landscape of AI in legal practice, why AI gives small firms an advantage, and how attorneys can safely leverage these tools without falling victim to “hallucinations.” We discuss how...

Teaching Judges: Appellate Expert Cherise Bacalski on Brief Writing and the Human Side of Law Appellate specialist Cherise Bacalski teaches appellate writing at NYU Law's New Appellate Judges Program, and in this interview we discuss her insights from both sides of the bench and how her background in rhetoric shapes her approach to appellate advocacy. Training new judges: At NYU, Cherise teac...

Appealing in the 9th Circuit? Your deadline is 30 days. Don’t let Rule 58’s “separate document” extension lead you astray. Appellate specialists Tim Kowal and Jeff Lewis also discuss ChatGPT 5 (a “market disruptor”), and sanctions strategies in federal court. Appeal Deadline Alert: The 9th Circuit in McNeil v. Guitare held that Rule 58's 150-day extension for appeal deadlines applies only to...

Failing to cite your secondary sources in briefs is poor form. But is it plagiarism? Jeff and Tim debate. And when the Supreme Court The publishes a case, should it explain itself? PJ Gilbert and Tim say yes, Supreme Court and Jeff disagree. Also in this episode: Can copying from a CLE article really get you sanctioned? Kelly v. Tao suggests… maybe. Presiding Justice Gilbert rails (again) against...

Patrick Hagen is a man of the people—he still proudly uses Times New Roman! But he also has the ear of LinkedIn’s legal-writing elite, with over 36,000 followers as of August 2025. Patrick sits down with Jeff and Tim to share the source and method behind his viral legal-writing tips, how his judicial clerkships shaped his voice, how to hone good writing even when writing “by committee” under senio...

Unlike any other state, California effectively deputizes employees to act as “Private Attorney Generals” to sue employers for PAGA claims—both for themselves, and for their co-workers. But since the individual claims can get compelled to arbitration, employees started to file claims only on behalf of the “body” of co-workers, asserting no claim on behalf of themselves as the “head” of the case. Em...

Summarizing the extraordinary events surrounding the 2020 election, the California State Bar Court’s review decision issued a decision in June 2025 recommending that President Trump’s election attorney, John Eastman, be disbarred. Tim and Jeff unpack. Was Eastman merely theorizing, or actively advocating for a constitutional end-run? What is the difference, anyway, whether Eastman represented the...

SCOTUSblog contributor and EmpiricalSCOTUS analyst Adam Feldman joins us for a recap of the 2024–25 Supreme Court term. We dive into the end-of-term Stat Pack, ideological surprises, dissent patterns, and whether the Court is still a 6–3 conservative lock—or something more nuanced. We discuss: Headlines make an opinion a “blockbuster,” but what really makes it significant? How Justice Kagan ended...

Mere days after SCOTUS enjoins universal injunctions, judges find other way to afford “complete relief.” A big one: The Administrative Procedure Act allows courts to enjoin agency actions. Also: What if a defendant does not want a co-defendant dismissed and relieved of liability? The California Supreme Court says co-defendants can oppose each other’s MSJs in R&D Contractors v. Superior Court ....

No more nationwide injunctions, SCOTUS says Justice Barrett writing for the 6-3 majority in Trump v. CASA . District courts must limit their injunctions to the “case or controversy” before it. Justices Sotomayor and Jackson each wrote dissents urging that more judicial power was needed to check the executive. In response, Justice Barrett says that exceeding judicial power is not the right way to a...

Governor Newsom sued to enjoin President Trump’s deployment of the National Guard to quell the ongoing LA riots without Newsom’s consent. But first, we disclose our biases—about Trump, opportunistic political labeling of “rebellions” or “insurrections,” and how easily the thin veneer of civilization is pierced by masked cowards throwing rocks. Also: Beach yoga is free speech, says the Ninth Circui...

The Court of International Trade—whatever that is—enjoined Trump’s tariffs. But the Court of Appeal for the Federal Circuit imposed an administrative stay pending further briefing. We also cover: Defending a Zoom depo? If you refuse to go on camera and are accused of improper witness communication, you may be sanctioned. (Remote depos are a game-changer—woe betide the attorney who screws it up for...

The Supreme Court faulted the district judge in A.A.R.P. v. Trump for refusing to grant the Venezuelan alleged Tren de Aragua members’ injunction. But on remand, Judge Ho comes to the judge’s defense: after all, the judge only had 42 minutes’ notice. And to conclude that the judge had had some 14 hours, Judge Ho noted, the Supreme Court must have started counting at 12:30 a.m. Last time we checked...

SCOTUS spent two and a half hours hearing oral argument on Friday in the birthright-citizenship cases consolidated in Trump v. CASA —not about birthright citizenship, but about whether district courts should be issuing nationwide injunctions. Many justices, and commentators on both sides, have criticized nationwide injunctions as a judicial incursion into executive policymaking in both Republican...

Trump’s executive order targeting Perkins Coie gets bench-slapped. Jeff recites the decision’s paean to the plight of lawyers. Tim wonders if Big Law was really hanging by such a slender thread. But on the law, neither is surprised by the result in Perkins Coie v. DOJ . Also this week: A motion to seal to protect privacy goes full Streisand Effect in Marin v. Rayant —filed, denied, appealed... and...

A civil litigant, hit with $200,000 sanctions for plotting the kidnapping and murder of the defendant, gets the sanctions reversed. Next week the California Supreme Court will hear oral argument on whether the state can mandate long-term care facility employees to use residents’ preferred pronouns. If this is consistent with the First Amendment, could conservative states mandate hospitals refer to...

Apple said no jab, no job. The actor sued. The Court of Appeal holds the jab policy is expressive conduct, and thus the suit was a SLAPP. Apple Studios dropped an actor from its Manhunt miniseries over a COVID vaccine mandate. The actor sued. Apple filed an anti-SLAPP motion—and won. Jeff and Tim break down Sexton v. Apple Studios and ask: Is a vaccine mandate a creative decision? Do logistical de...

Alan Dershowitz signed a complaint containing frivolous allegations in Kerri Lake v. Gates. But he’s only “of counsel” who reviewed one paragraph, containing nothing frivolous. So the panel reversed the Rule 11 sanctions—but warns that, going forward, “of counsel” is not a valid defense. Judge Bumatay writes separately to say it should be. Jeff agrees with the majority, but Tim raises a possible c...

Judge VanDyke made a YouTube video to accompany his dissent in Duncan v. Bonta , the Second Amendment case in which a Ninth Circuit en banc panel upheld California’s ban on handgun magazines over 10 bullets. Judge VanDyke’s video shows him disassembling a gun, comparing accessories, and using a portion of oral argument to claim his point wasn’t being heard. The issue: If a magazine is just an acce...

A federal judge ordered the Trump administration not to deport five plaintiffs, alleged MS-13 and Tren de Aragua Venezuelan gang members. The administration complied, but then the judge verbally ordered the administration to turn around a plane and return 261 non-party alleged gang members. The administration didn’t do so, and appealed. Meanwhile, the President tweeted that the judge should be imp...