Legal News and Appellate Tips

Our regular roundup of noteworthy appellate decisions and legal news includes these stories:

⚠Did a Covid-era jury cut short its deliberations (to just one hour) because it wanted to get out of the cramped jury room? Plaintiff thought so, but did not make a record of having raised a timely objection. Held: Objection forfeited.

⚠Did the failure to raise an affirmative defense in a joint pretrial order forfeit that defense? The 9th Circuit held it did, but Judge Bumatay thought it was raised indirectly and the lack of a more explicit assertion did not prejudice the plaintiff.

🤚Suit against Maxine Waters for falsely saying her opponent was “dishonorably discharged” may go forward: evidence that Waters was shown a military document refuting her charge, and Waters’ failure to conduct any other investigation, supported plaintiff’s showing of actual malice for purposes of defeating the anti-SLAPP motion.

📃Record defect resulted in California Court of Appeal resulted in affirmative via a rare “memorandum decision.”

✉60-day deadline to appeal is not triggered by file-stamped order unless it attaches a proof of service.

🗣New snitch rule would impose a mandatory duty to report violations of other lawyers.

👩‍⚖️Oral arguments at U.S. Supreme Court run long by average of 30 minutes.

💼Supreme Court makes it easier to preserve issues raised in summary judgment motions in Dupree v. Younger.

🛑Federal courts to wind down remote access as US COVID emergency ends.

🕔3d. Circuit to impose 5:00 p.m. filing deadline.

ADF attorney Chris Schandevel explains how he got the opportunity to orally argue dozens of cases in multiple appellate courts including state supreme courts in just a decade of practice. We also discuss:

👩‍⚖️Does oral argument make a different? Can amicus briefs make a difference? Yes, and one case proves it: Chris talk about Kligler v. Attorney General in the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, where Chris’s amicus brief and oral argument made the difference.

📃Even a failed petition for certiorari makes a difference: ADF’s petition in Hoggard v. Rhodes asked SCOTUS to review the extension of qualified-immunity even to campus police officers’ non-urgent action restricting free speech. SCOTUS declined, but Justice Thomas wrote a statement agreeing with ADF’s argument, and that statement has been cited in nearly 100 decisions since then.

✍Top 10 Briefing Myths! Get ready to be offended if you still use Times New Roman and two spaces after a period! Please send complaints (in Century Schoolbook font) to Chris Schandevel.

Courts upheld a gun ban but overturned a gas ban, and found yet another strange application of section 998 offers. Judges and clerks are more becoming more racially diverse, but […]

“Give your listener one thing to do at a time,” says appellate attorney Stefan Love. So you’ve got a great photo to flash on the screen, or a damning quote for your jurors to read, but at the same time your jurors are supposed to be studying the photo or quote, the attorney is also talking at them.

You need to spoon-feed your listener. But use only one spoon at a time.

Adam Unikowsky, an appellate litigator with nine appearance in the U.S. Supreme Court, argues that judicial law clerks could be replaced by AI. We discuss:

💻 “AI will make judges release more accurate decisions more quickly. This is good.”

💻 Judges already rely on clerk summaries, so if AI produces better summaries faster, that is good.

💻 AI is a mysterious black box, you say? Well, law clerks are already invisible to the public yet influence judicial decisions without any input from the litigants.

💻 True, law clerks are human—but they are still often wrong. “Is it really preferable that judges receive recommendations and draft opinions from ideological 26-year-olds?”

✍ A writing tip: “Unclear writing usually implies unclear thinking. If something is unclear, it’s probably because I haven’t really figured it out.”

👩‍⚖️ An an oral argument tip: Don’t read from your notes. Adam relates a story when the Supreme Court stopped an advocate by asking, “Counsel, are you reading this?”

AI, they say, will revolutionize the practice of law. But can it do anything for my actual practice, as in, the case I am working on right now? Prof. Jayne Woods joins us to explain how she used ChatGPT—the question-and-answer AI interface—to draft a very passable first draft of an oral argument outline.

Even better, ChatGPT could event engage (with a little coaxing) in a moot court dialogue, asking questions and follow-ups about legal issues.

Some of Prof. Woods’ takeaways:

• Producing legal outlines are right in ChatGPT’s wheelhouse.

• ChatGPT can be valuable in building confidence answering questions about your case.

• There is a learning curve to ChatGPT, but anyone can begin without training. The sooner you start, the sooner you will find uses for your practice.

You have just about 15-30 seconds at oral argument before the panel is likely to interrupt you. How will you use that time? Minnesota appellate attorney Jeff Markowitz says you should be unlocking that key point that allows the rest of your case to unfold. If you haven’t discovered that point by the time of oral argument and distilled it to an elevator pitch, you’re likely squandering your opportunity.

Jeff also explains why you’re likely squandering prime real estate in your brief by roadmapping your arguments. Your headings should be doing that already. Instead, use the introduction to develop your case theme.

Then we compare Minnesota and California appellate procedure:

👉 Unlike in CA, in MN the Supreme Court sets the rules of civil procedure.

👉 Unlike in CA, MN courts always have a court reporter available.

👉 Unlike in CA, MN doesn’t have a “we don’t talk about Bruno” approach to unpublished opinions. They’re not binding, but you can cite them.

👉 Unlike in CA, MN gives a 30-day initial stay of judgment enforcement.

I haven’t met an attorney who wouldn’t love a tentative opinion or a “focus letter” on their appeal. But have you ever tried to articulate how, exactly, it would help to know what the panel is thinking? It seems intuitive, but really, what would you do if you knew the panel disagreed with you on a certain argument? Repeat your argument—loudly, with gesticulations?

One of the reasons oral argument is helpful, suggests Justice Laurie Zelon—now retired and working as an arbitrator—is because it gives counsel an opportunity to give a “surprising” and unexpected take on the case as a whole. “If you give a tentative ruling, you may not hear those things,“ and “there is less opportunity to see that turning that you didn’t see.”

Think of it this way: Every attorney knows that the most important part of the brief is not Roman numeral III, Part D, subpart 4, romanette iii. Even if that is where your key legal argument lives, the prime real estate in your brief is your introduction. Why? Because that’s where you introduce your sympathetic client, set the tone of your brief, and make your common-sense pitch for your proposed outcome. If you haven’t made your successful elevator pitch, a laser-focused re-examination of your legal argument from romanette iii of subpart D.4 of your brief is not likely to save you.

Take the opportunity of oral argument instead to refocus your elevator pitch.

In this roundup episode, we summarize the best tips for briefing, argument, and overall advocacy from the judges, attorneys, and specialists Jeff Lewis and I interviewed on the California Appellate Law Podcast in 2022.

Some of the tips and trends we cover:

There is a trend toward informality in legal writing—but do pop-culture references go too far?

Everyone knows oral argument usually doesn’t change the outcome, unless you have a whiz-bang answer to that all-important question from the panel. Which is why the drumbeat for “focus letters”—where the panel reveals the all-important question in time to formulate an answer to it—is getting louder.

Stop bombarding courts with evidence and arguments. Not only does it overtax juries and judges, it betrays weakness: If you’re right, why do you keep repeating yourself?

And from one of our favorite conversations, Justice James Lambden offered this metaphor for the practice of law and the importance of civility:

“Litigation is not like preparing for a battle, it’s more like going on an expedition … like taking a trip across the mountains and encountering different places where you have to do different things.”

Some appellate courts issue tentative opinions or focus letters, tipping off counsel to the issues of most interest to the panel. Justice James Lambden says they improve the quality of oral argument.

Think about it: three appellate judges and their research attorneys have been thinking deeply about this one question in the case, and then the panel springs it on counsel without warning.

Instead of just making sport of the outing, a focus letter would help bring counsel into the conversation where they might stand a chance at helping the discussion along—rather than just floundering out there to no one’s benefit.

Trial judges issue tentative decisions, why don’t appellate justices? Justice Thompson draws from his positive experience as a trial judge enjoying improved oral arguments after issuing tentative decisions, and suggests that the Court of Appeal might enjoy the same improvement. But we might have to wait for a “changing of the guard” as younger justices take the bench before seeing a

M.C. Sungaila has advocated at some of the highest levels of appellate law, and last year took her experience and her heart for mentoring and public interest work to the Portia Project podcast, where she distills the wisdom and experience of women judges, justices, and top attorneys in the nation.

M.C. sits down with Tim Kowal and Jeff Lewis on the California Appellate Law Podcast to discuss some of the insights and recurring themes and advice she’s gleaned from having interviewed now over 100 of the most successful women in the legal profession today:

• The “watershed moment” in the 1980s when Sandra Day O’Connor became the first woman on the Supreme Court, opening the floodgates for women in law.

• The varied paths to the bench, taken by lawyers who never thought it possible.

• A law degree doesn’t just mean one thing, and success sometimes mean failing at your first try, second try, etc., until you find the right fit.

• The disconnect between lawyers and judges: Advocates are looking for an outcome, but appellate judges are looking for an opinion.

• Appellate judges look at oral argument as another part of their process in preparing to make their decision. Don’t look at oral argument as just an isolated 30-60 minutes—that’s not how the panel sees it.