Podcasts about Calp

In this weeks episode we hear the translations of the statements that were given by members of the USB and CALP among others at the national assembly that was held on the 23rd of January in Genova in support of the then upcoming internationa strike against the drive to war that happened on the 6th of Febuary and the ongoing campaign for the working class to oppose capitalist war. 

In our newest series led by our Italian reporter Matteo we get to hear from a worker organizer, Romeo, of the Feb 6, 2026 international strike of Mediterranean dockworkers against war and for Palestine. CALP or the Autonomous Collective of Port Workers is a militant collective of workers who have had enough of the ruling imperialist class trying to force them into complicity with international crimes against humanity so they have become sand in the machine, shutting down weapons shipments coming through their ports.  Join the discord: discord.gg/tDvmNzX Follow the pod at instagram.com/workstoppage, @WorkStoppagePod on Twitter,  John @facebookvillain, and Lina @solidaritybee

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 up in the majority more than some of the conservatives.Why Justice Kavanaugh writes so many concurrences.Does the emergency docket (aka “shadow docket”) confound the predictability of legal outcomes?Gorsuch's libertarian streak, Barrett's evolving voice, and Thomas's prolific pen.Is the Court 3–3–3? Or just a 6-3 with what Adam calls a “soft middle”?SCOTUS opinion length, voting blocs, and coalition patterns—and why they matter to your next cert petition.Tune in to learn how to read between the majority lines—and what might be coming in the 2025–26 term.

Buket Calp'ın hazırlayıp sunduğu İçimizdeki Yenilik programına Üstün Patent Kurucu - Talk N Training Kurucu Ortak Özlem Aslan Kart konuk oldu.

Buket Calp'ın hazırlayıp sunduğu İçimizdeki Yenilik programına Üstün Patent Kurucu - Talk N Training Kurucu Ortak Özlem Aslan Kart konuk oldu.

Buket Calp'ın hazırlayıp sunduğu İçimizdeki Yenilik programına Girisimci Educall & Edubook ve Edubook Kids - CEO Tarık Sönmez konuk oldu.

Buket Calp'ın hazırlayıp sunduğu İçimizdeki Yenilik programına Girisimci Educall & Edubook ve Edubook Kids - CEO Tarık Sönmez konuk oldu.

Till Trojer, AI Officer at HEKS/EPER (Swiss Church Aid), joins Humanitarian AI Today guest host Rory Crew, Technical Advisor on Data and Digitalization with the CALP Network which works on increasing the quality, quantity, and impact of humanitarian cash and voucher assistance, to discuss how mid-sized aid organizations are developing and implementing their AI strategies, and the impact of the aid funding crisis on the sector. Till's role at HEKS/EPER involves helping the organization use AI responsibly, building trust, and ensuring ethical standards by understanding the context and listening to the concerns and needs of teams. Till provided insights into HEKS/EPER's AI approach, explaining how AI is integrated into their broader digital transformation strategy rather than being treated as a separate entity. He also shared his views on AI as a catalyst for deeper discussions about existing systems, infrastructure, and data hosting dependencies, prompting a critical re-evaluation of reliance on big tech companies. Rory highlighted the timely nature of the conversation, as both cash assistance and AI offer the potential for greater efficiency—a desperate need for the sector amidst calls to do more with less. Both guests emphasized the importance of ensuring that AI solutions are grounded in the communities they serve and avoid the "graveyard of humanitarian pilots" by planning for sustainability and community buy-in from the outset. Ultimately, their vision for futuristic AI centers on systems that prioritize ethics, accountability, and empowerment, refusing unethical tasks and ensuring that communities remain in the driving seat of their own development.

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, Congress has not provisioned courts a budget to operate 24 hours. “This is a district court,” Judge Ho reminds, “not a Denny's.”The Supreme Court doesn't have appellate jurisdiction without an actual order on the injunction motion. Tim agrees with Judge Ho that the Supreme Court played a little roughshod with the otherwise fussy jurisdictional rules.But the Court is losing patience with the Trump Administration's legal tactics, Jeff suspects, which is why the Court is willing to stretch past the limits on its power.What do you think? Is the Court's move defensible exercising power arguably beyond its jurisdiction? Does it hold faith with Marbury, which famously established judicial power by not exercising it?We also discuss the one-sentence letdown in the high-stakes religious charter school case, Oklahoma Charter Board v. Drummond. And we share CALP alum Chris Schandevel's appellate lessons from a hard-fought loss: how to serve your client when the Court doesn't serve you the decision you fought for.Appellate Specialist Jeff Lewis' biography, LinkedIn profile, and Twitter feed.Appellate Specialist Tim Kowal's biography, LinkedIn profile, Twitter feed, and YouTube page.Sign up for Not To Be Published, Tim Kowal's weekly legal update, or view his blog of recent cases.

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 accessory not entitled to Second Amendment protection, then basically the entire gun is just a bunch of unprotected accessories.Jeff and Tim react:Can a federal judge issue a TikTok-style dissent? If so, can lawyers start footnoting their briefs with YouTube links?Does a video “illustration” that relies on props cross the line into new fact-finding? Or is it just illustrative of a legal point about distinguish an “arm” from its “accessories”?Are judges likely to do more of these dissents? Maybe explainer videos would be useful in patent cases (comparing iPhone and Samsung phone designs), or product defects, or police excessive-force cases?And practical questions: Will the video—and transcript—show up in Westlaw searches? How do you cite to something side during a dissent video?We also discuss a California Supreme Court ruling clarifying that malicious prosecution claims, even against lawyers, get the full two-year statute of limitations. Not the shorter one-year.And finally, an update from the J&J v. Trump litigation saga: a judge opens with a warning about the “priceless” nature of attorney integrity. The administration then invoked state secrets. Contempt proceedings now loom. Stay tuned.Appellate Specialist Jeff Lewis' biography, LinkedIn profile, and Twitter feed.Appellate Specialist Tim Kowal's biography, LinkedIn profile, Twitter feed, and YouTube page.Sign up for Not To Be Published, Tim Kowal's weekly legal update, or view his blog of recent cases.Other items discussed in the episode:Video Dissent: https://bsky.app/profile/rmfifthcircuit.bsky.social/post/3lkt7yftgqc2g

This episode is a conversation about the neuropsychology of bilingualism, with a focus on children and the developing brain. We review concepts including language acquisition during fetal and early life development, sequential versus simultaneous bilingualism, L1 versus L2, BICS and CALP, cognitive effects of bilingualism (particularly executive functions), neuroanatomy and neuroimaging, and impact of SES on language development. We also cover clinically oriented topics related to conducting neuropsychological evaluations in bilingual children, such as assessing language proficiency prior to cognitive testing, effectively utilizing interpreters, normative data selection, report writing, feedback, and teleneuropsychology. Show notes are available at www.NavNeuro.com/162 _________________ If you'd like to support the show, here are a few easy ways: 1) Get CE credits for listening to select episodes: www.NavNeuro.com/INS  2) Tell your friends and colleagues about it 3) Subscribe (free) and leave an Apple Podcasts rating/review: www.NavNeuro.com/itunes 4) Check out our book Becoming a Neuropsychologist, and leave it an Amazon rating   Thanks for listening, and join us next time as we continue to navigate the brain and behavior! [Note: This podcast and all linked content is intended for general educational purposes only and does not constitute the practice of psychology or any other professional healthcare advice and services. No professional relationship is formed between hosts and listeners. All content is to be used at listeners' own risk. Users should always seek appropriate medical and psychological care from their licensed healthcare provider.]

On this episode of the Learning Ally Literacy Leadership Podcast, host Dr. Terrie Noland, CALP, speaks with Tiffany Dudley, who brings 19 years of experience in education. Her roles include an elementary educator, gifted and talented specialist, library media specialist, and currently the State Program Manager for Learning Ally. Throughout her career, Tiffany has made a significant impact, particularly through her advocacy for the Great Reading Games, an initiative designed to inspire students to engage in reading. She highlights teachers' powerful role as "reader leaders," Whether teachers realize it or not, their actions and enthusiasm for books profoundly shape students' attitudes toward reading. Feeling inspired? We've got the tools, resources, and support to help you challenge your students to take their reading to the next level in this year's Great Reading Games. For more information, click here.

Attorneys still wrestling with Microsoft Word to finish a brief need to be acquainted with Chris Dralla's product Typelaw, the groundbreaking tool that lets attorneys turn plain text into fully formatted, cited, hyperlinked, local rule-compliant briefs.If your practice depends on producing high-quality briefs, here is why you need Typelaw in your life:Typelaw reduces non-billable time spent on technical aspects of brief preparation, allowing lawyers to focus on legal arguments.Moving beyond Word, Typelaw lets you edit directly in the PDF to see instantly what the final, hyperlinked version will look.We also compare and contrast Typelaw with similar and complimentary offerings from Clearbrief and CounselPress.Chris Dralla's biography, LinkedIn profile, and Twitter feed.Appellate Specialist Jeff Lewis' biography, LinkedIn profile, and Twitter feed.Appellate Specialist Tim Kowal's biography, LinkedIn profile, Twitter feed, and YouTube page.Sign up for Not To Be Published, Tim Kowal's weekly legal update, or view his blog of recent cases.Other items discussed in the episode:Videos from this episode will be posted at Tim Kowal's YouTube channel.Explore Type Law: Visit Type Law's website to learn more about their services for automating appellate and trial brief preparation.

In this episode, host Dr. Terrie Noland, CALP talks with with the remarkable Kenia Flores, the Manager of Government Relations at Learning Ally. A true Literacy Leader, Kenia lives the Learning Ally mission each and every day. Kenia, who was born blind, narrates her personal and professional journey, highlighting the impact of mentors and advocacy in her life. She emphasizes the transformative power of education for students with disabilities, as well as her efforts in advocating for accessible absentee voting in North Carolina and delivering a TED Talk on overcoming low expectations. The discussion advocates for increased inclusivity, the importance of lived experiences, and active community engagement in the democratic process. Listen to Kenia's TED Talk here, and learn more about her recent accomplishment of being named a Democracy Hero here. 

Our latest episode of the Learning Ally Literacy Leadership Podcast, with host Dr. Terrie Noland, CALP, features Dr. Kelli Sandman-Hurley, co-founder of the Dyslexia Training Institute. Join us as we explore practical strategies for parent advocacy and effective interventions for students with dyslexia. Discover how educators can create a supportive learning environment and collaborate with families to enhance student outcomes. In this eye-opening discussion, Kelli emphasizes the importance of personalized IEP goals, the emotional impact of low literacy, and the vital role educators play in partnership with parents. 

After discussing SCOTUS voting blocs and public perception, in part two of our discussion Adam Feldman rounds up the 2023-2024 term. We cover:SEC v. Jarkesy, holding that 7th Amendment procedural rights apply in agency proceedings, and whether Adam is surprised at the voting alignment (conservatives pro, liberals con).Loper Bright v. Raimondo, overruling Chevron, and what to make of the liberal bloc joining the government in both these administrative state cases.CFPB v. Comm. Fin. Svcs Assn, holding that CFPB funding fits with history and tradition, and whether Adam was surprised that Justice Thomas broke with the conservative group to join.Trump v. Anderson, holding the 14th Amendment did not disqualify Trump from the ballot, and whether Adam was surprised it was 9-0.Fischer v. U.S., holding 18 USC 1512 (prohibiting congressional obstruction) does not apply to Jan. 6, and whether Adam was surprised that Justice Jackson joined, and Justice Barrett dissented.Rahimi, holding the text, history, and tradition test supports civil restraining order disarmament, and whether Adam was surprised the court even took this case, and surprised that the court only issued GVRs on companion cases, despite there being so many Rahimi concurrences. (Akhil Amar, renowned constitutional scholar and an originalist of a liberal variety, has an interesting take on Rahimi at his podcast here.)Adam Feldman biography, LinkedIn profile, and Twitter feed.Appellate Specialist Jeff Lewis' biography, LinkedIn profile, and Twitter feed.Appellate Specialist Tim Kowal's biography, LinkedIn profile, Twitter feed, and YouTube page.Sign up for Not To Be Published, Tim Kowal's weekly legal update, or view his blog of recent cases.The California Appellate Law Podcast thanks Casetext for sponsoring the podcast. Listeners receive a discount on Casetext Basic Research at casetext.com/CALP. The co-hosts, Jeff and Tim, were also invited to try Casetext's newest technology, CoCounsel, the world's first AI legal assistant. You can discover CoCounsel for yourself with a demo and free trial at casetext.com/CoCounsel.Other items discussed in the episode:Empirical SCOTUS, https://empiricalscotus.com/Videos from this episode will be posted at Tim Kowal's YouTube channel.Legal Data Analytics | Optimized Legal Solutions (feldyfied.wixsite.com)

Adam Feldman watches Supreme Court trends: voting blocs both usual and unusual, numbers of concurring and dissenting opinions, and other analytical ways of predicting outcomes. In our discussion, we cover:Recent polls disapprove of how the Supreme Court “is handling its job.” What does “handling its job” mean? Does it mean outcomes, or the decision-making process? And how does Adam rate how the Supreme Court is handling its job?Is this a 6-3 court? Or a 3-3-3 court?Is it fair to group justices along lines of “institutionalist” and “non-institutionalist,” as some experts have done?We then tee things up to do a round up of the 2023-2024 term.Adam Feldman biography, LinkedIn profile, and Twitter feed.Appellate Specialist Jeff Lewis' biography, LinkedIn profile, and Twitter feed.Appellate Specialist Tim Kowal's biography, LinkedIn profile, Twitter feed, and YouTube page.Sign up for Not To Be Published, Tim Kowal's weekly legal update, or view his blog of recent cases.The California Appellate Law Podcast thanks Casetext for sponsoring the podcast. Listeners receive a discount on Casetext Basic Research at casetext.com/CALP. The co-hosts, Jeff and Tim, were also invited to try Casetext's newest technology, CoCounsel, the world's first AI legal assistant. You can discover CoCounsel for yourself with a demo and free trial at casetext.com/CoCounsel.Other items discussed in the episode:Empirical SCOTUS, https://empiricalscotus.com/Videos from this episode will be posted at Tim Kowal's YouTube channel.Legal Data Analytics | Optimized Legal Solutions (feldyfied.wixsite.com)

A ransomware attack hit the Los Angeles County Superior Court in July 2024, affecting e-filing services. Did you miss a filing deadline because of this? We discuss two Rules of Court that could help.We also cover:Are anti-SLAPP orders “judgments”?Court of Appeal to litigants: Your adverbs are unwelcome here. Ok to say “The order is erroneous.” But not “The order is transparently erroneous.”Appeal might be actually late, but constructively on time.Two anti-tax initiatives struck down: one too broad, the other too narrow.On HOA Christmas party ban, a split 9th Cir. panel with three opinions.If you are “seriously annoying” you can get hit with a restraining order, but not for being regular annoying.Appellate Specialist Jeff Lewis' biography, LinkedIn profile, and Twitter feed.Appellate Specialist Tim Kowal's biography, LinkedIn profile, Twitter feed, and YouTube page.Sign up for Not To Be Published, Tim Kowal's weekly legal update, or view his blog of recent cases.The California Appellate Law Podcast thanks Casetext for sponsoring the podcast. Listeners receive a discount on Casetext Basic Research at casetext.com/CALP. The co-hosts, Jeff and Tim, were also invited to try Casetext's newest technology, CoCounsel, the world's first AI legal assistant. You can discover CoCounsel for yourself with a demo and free trial at casetext.com/CoCounsel.Other items discussed in the episode:Lawyer Toolkit: Untimely Appeals May Be Excused If There Was a Mishap with E-Filing, discussing Garg v. Garg (2022) 82 Cal.App.5th 1036, 1041–1042Are Anti-SLAPP orders “judgments”? Wastexperts, Inc. v. Arakelian Enters. (D2d4 Jul. 11, 2024 No. B325299) [pub. opn.] (Tim's writeup)Late appeal deemed constructively filed on time, In re Santos (D5 Jun. 6, 2024 No. F087859) [nonpub. opn.] (Tim's writeup)Keeton v. Tesla, Inc.: arb-killer late-fee penalty NOT preempted by FAALegislature v. Weber: Tax initiative held invalid because too broadLoeber v. Lakeside Joint School District* Tax initiative held invalid because too narrowRead the full article at the

Previously in part one, criminal-defense attorney Don Hammond explained why, post-Bruen, states may no longer impose discretionary constraints in concealed-carry permitting regimes. But will that change after the Supreme Court's recent 8-1 decision in Rahimi, holding that a restraining order prohibiting a particularly violent actor from possessing firearms was consistent with the Second Amendment tests under Heller and Bruen? **Rahimi, when attempting to comport it with Heller and Bruen, **gets a bit confusing—so what are lower courts to do with it? But one thing Rahimi did emphasize is the actual violence Rahimi committed—so would California's authorization of disarming restraining orders merely to protect “mental calm” pass muster? Then we circle back and ask: if the Legislature amended the CCW laws to make nondisclosure a ground for denying a CCW, would that pass muster under Rahimi?The answer seemed easy a few weeks ago, but is suddenly a bit more difficult.Don Hammond's biography and LinkedIn profile.Appellate Specialist Jeff Lewis' biography, LinkedIn profile, and Twitter feed.Appellate Specialist Tim Kowal's biography, LinkedIn profile, Twitter feed, and YouTube page.Sign up for Not To Be Published, Tim Kowal's weekly legal update, or view his blog of recent cases.The California Appellate Law Podcast thanks Casetext for sponsoring the podcast. Listeners receive a discount on Casetext Basic Research at casetext.com/CALP. The co-hosts, Jeff and Tim, were also invited to try Casetext's newest technology, CoCounsel, the world's first AI legal assistant. You can discover CoCounsel for yourself with a demo and free trial at casetext.com/CoCounsel.Other items discussed in the episode:Don Hammond, Bad facts make bad law: Rahimi, Daily Journal, Jun. 27, 2024New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022)United States v. Rahimi, No. 22-915 (Jun. 21, 2024)E.g., Parris J. v. Christopher U., 96 Cal.App.5th 108, 116 (Cal. Ct. App. 2023)Tim's article, SCOTUS approves disarmament on restraining orders for “physical safety” but suggests limitsVideos from this episode will be posted at Tim Kowal's YouTube channel.

John Sylvester was the counsel of record in the controversial Abdelqader v. Abraham published opinion. In the previous episode we discussed why it was controversial. (Short version: because the Court of Appeal, sub silentio, thumbed its nose at the Supreme Court and concluded that a missing finding required by statute gives you a an automatic get-a-new-trial-free card.) In this second part of our discussion, we discuss analogous situations with the Racial Justice Act, and in the example of family law financial disclosures—where in a closely analogous situation the Court of Appeal held exactly the opposite of Abdelqader.John explains what attorneys are supposed to do with two conflicting authorities—with one of them being the Supreme Court. Hint: you have both arguments available to you, but as an attorney, unlike the Court of Appeal, when the Supreme Court has rejected your argument you have to say so.John Sylvester's biography and LinkedIn profile.Appellate Specialist Jeff Lewis' biography, LinkedIn profile, and Twitter feed.Appellate Specialist Tim Kowal's biography, LinkedIn profile, Twitter feed, and YouTube page.Sign up for Not To Be Published, Tim Kowal's weekly legal update, or view his blog of recent cases.The California Appellate Law Podcast thanks Casetext for sponsoring the podcast. Listeners receive a discount on Casetext Basic Research at casetext.com/CALP. The co-hosts, Jeff and Tim, were also invited to try Casetext's newest technology, CoCounsel, the world's first AI legal assistant. You can discover CoCounsel for yourself with a demo and free trial at casetext.com/CoCounsel.Other items discussed in the episode:***Abdelqader v. Abraham***F.P. v. MonierMarriage of BurgerJeff and I recently discussed whether the Racial Justice Act is unconstitutional. (See Tim's writeup here.)Videos from this episode will be posted at Tim Kowal's YouTube channel.

John Sylvester was the counsel of record in the controversial Abdelqader v. Abraham published opinion. Why was it controversial? Because the Court of Appeal thumbed its nose at the Supreme Court, which had held in F.P. v. Monier that just because the trial judge forgets to make a required written finding you don't get an automatic get-a-new-trial-free card. Abdelqader held that, in custody matters, you do get an automatic get-a-new-trial-free card.In this first part of our discussion, John lays out the all-important statement of decision process, and the constitutional mandate that led the Supreme Court to hold that a defective statement of decision doesn't give you an automatic get-a-new-trial-free card.That sets up part two of our discussion in the next episode in which we discuss analogous situations with the Racial Justice Act, and in the example of family law financial disclosures—where in a closely analogous situation the Court of Appeal held exactly the opposite of Abdelqader. John explains what attorneys are supposed to do with two conflicting authorities—with one of them being the Supreme Court.John Sylvester's biography and LinkedIn profile.Appellate Specialist Jeff Lewis' biography, LinkedIn profile, and Twitter feed.Appellate Specialist Tim Kowal's biography, LinkedIn profile, Twitter feed, and YouTube page.Sign up for Not To Be Published, Tim Kowal's weekly legal update, or view his blog of recent cases.The California Appellate Law Podcast thanks Casetext for sponsoring the podcast. Listeners receive a discount on Casetext Basic Research at casetext.com/CALP. The co-hosts, Jeff and Tim, were also invited to try Casetext's newest technology, CoCounsel, the world's first AI legal assistant. You can discover CoCounsel for yourself with a demo and free trial at casetext.com/CoCounsel.Other items discussed in the episode:***Abdelqader v. Abraham***F.P. v. MonierMarriage of BurgerJeff and I recently discussed whether the Racial Justice Act is unconstitutional. (See Tim's writeup here.)Videos from this episode will be posted at Tim Kowal's YouTube channel.

Every attorney has felt the concern over a growing receivable, and the frustration of a nonpaying client. In the continuation of our discussion in the last episode, Carl Mueller shares his top 10 tips to avoid them and win them. The tips include:See a “red flag”? Trust your gut, and run.Check your retainer agreements for compliance with Business and Professions Code sections 6146, 6147, and 6148. And fully describe your financial arrangement, including rate increases and trial deposits.Did you make important case disclosures to the client on a phone call? Put that in your billing statement. The client will be deemed to have acknowledged you made the disclosures.Before sending you the fee arb notice, be aware of the one-year malpractice statute of limitations!Carl I. S. Mueller's biography, LinkedIn profile.Appellate Specialist Jeff Lewis' biography, LinkedIn profile, and Twitter feed.Appellate Specialist Tim Kowal's biography, LinkedIn profile, Twitter feed, and YouTube page.Sign up for Not To Be Published, Tim Kowal's weekly legal update, or view his blog of recent cases.The California Appellate Law Podcast thanks Casetext for sponsoring the podcast. Listeners receive a discount on Casetext Basic Research at casetext.com/CALP. The co-hosts, Jeff and Tim, were also invited to try Casetext's newest technology, CoCounsel, the world's first AI legal assistant. You can discover CoCounsel for yourself with a demo and free trial at casetext.com/CoCounsel.Other items discussed in the episode:Videos from this episode will be posted at Tim Kowal's YouTube channel.

Every attorney has felt the concern over a growing receivable, and the frustration of a nonpaying client. Carl Mueller litigates these billing disputes and explains what attorneys should know to avoid them and to win them:All the billing disputes are basically the same, so…Spot the “red flags.” (You know what they are.)If you do get into a dispute, know the 2021 Pech v. Morgan case—and get an expert. We discuss.Haven't brushed up on Business and Professions Code sections 6146, 6147, and 6148 in a while? Read them. Do them. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.In the next episode, we will cover Carl's top 10 tips for avoiding a fee dispute.Carl I. S. Mueller's biography, LinkedIn profile.Appellate Specialist Jeff Lewis' biography, LinkedIn profile, and Twitter feed.Appellate Specialist Tim Kowal's biography, LinkedIn profile, Twitter feed, and YouTube page.Sign up for Not To Be Published, Tim Kowal's weekly legal update, or view his blog of recent cases.The California Appellate Law Podcast thanks Casetext for sponsoring the podcast. Listeners receive a discount on Casetext Basic Research at casetext.com/CALP. The co-hosts, Jeff and Tim, were also invited to try Casetext's newest technology, CoCounsel, the world's first AI legal assistant. You can discover CoCounsel for yourself with a demo and free trial at casetext.com/CoCounsel.Other items discussed in the episode:Pech v. Morgan (2021) 61 Cal.App.5th 841Videos from this episode will be posted at Tim Kowal's YouTube channel.

Appellate justices' research attorneys are the ones advising the justices about your arguments and writing the opinions. We discuss 10 tips offered at a recent Orange County Bar Association event. Here is a taste:

Last time, we set the table with special-education attorney Tim Adams to discuss the big 9th Circuit win for parents of kids with IEPs (individualized education protocols). Now we dig in to Irvine Unified School District v. Landers and Gagliano.After covering the fact that the school district, to get out of helping a dyslexic student get the help she needed, spent over $1.13 million on its attorneys in over five-years of litigation involving a “trial by experts.” In this discussion, Tim Adams explains that IEPs are a constitutional right, so school districts are not legally permitted to consider their costs. Yet school district spokespersons take to the press to decry how these lawsuits are breaking the bank. So what is going on here?Tim Adams' biography.Appellate Specialist Jeff Lewis' biography, LinkedIn profile, and Twitter feed.Appellate Specialist Tim Kowal's biography, LinkedIn profile, Twitter feed, and YouTube page.Sign up for Not To Be Published, Tim Kowal's weekly legal update, or view his blog of recent cases.The California Appellate Law Podcast thanks Casetext for sponsoring the podcast. Listeners receive a discount on Casetext Basic Research at casetext.com/CALP. The co-hosts, Jeff and Tim, were also invited to try Casetext's newest technology, CoCounsel, the world's first AI legal assistant. You can discover CoCounsel for yourself with a demo and free trial at casetext.com/CoCounsel.Other items discussed in the episode:Irvine Unified School District v. Landers and Gagliano, No. 22-55286Why One School District Spent $1 Million Fighting a Special-Education Student - WSJEpisode 69, Special Education Law with Tim AdamsVideos from this episode will be posted at Tim Kowal's YouTube channel.

A big 9th Circuit win for parents of kids with IEPs (individualized education protocols) came down recently, and the prevailing attorney is podcast alum Tim Adams.In the first of this two-part discussion, we set the table to discuss Irvine Unified School District v. Landers and Gagliano. For example, to understand why parents trying to help their dyslexic daughter needed to make a federal case out of it, you should know:

Are you expecting a lawsuit? And do you want to get that lawsuit into federal court? If your client is domiciled in California, you need to know about “snap removals.” If you get wind of the lawsuit before it is served, you might be able to defeat the removal-bar on home-state defendants.But don't commit a “super snap” removal. That's when you remove before the complaint is officially filed. The 9th Circuit just rejected those.We discuss Casola v. Dexcom, Inc., and how to learn about lawsuits before they are even filed.Appellate Specialist Jeff Lewis' biography, LinkedIn profile, and Twitter feed.Appellate Specialist Tim Kowal's biography, LinkedIn profile, Twitter feed, and YouTube page.Sign up for Not To Be Published, Tim Kowal's weekly legal update, or view his blog of recent cases.The California Appellate Law Podcast thanks Casetext for sponsoring the podcast. Listeners receive a discount on Casetext Basic Research at casetext.com/CALP. The co-hosts, Jeff and Tim, were also invited to try Casetext's newest technology, CoCounsel, the world's first AI legal assistant. You can discover CoCounsel for yourself with a demo and free trial at casetext.com/CoCounsel.Other items discussed in the episode:Casola v. Dexcom, Inc., No. 23-55403 (9th Cir. Apr. 10, 2024)Videos from this episode will be posted at Tim Kowal's YouTube channel.

Racial minorities are sometimes removed from prospective juries—just like everybody else. But the Legislature is so concerned that this could happen on the (obviously improper) basis of race that the Racial Justice Act prohibits a challenge to a racial minority even on the basis of proper factors, such as lack of life experience. And if that happens, the Legislature has declared not only that this is against law, but operates as a get-a-new-trial-free card.But the California Constitution prohibits get-a-new-trial-free cards. Instead, no judgment may be reversed—even if the judgment is rife with error—unless the error results in a “miscarriage of justice.”Consider how these opinions might be reconciled:People v. Uriostegui (D2d6 Apr. 5, 2024 No. B325200) ___ Cal.App.5th ___ held violations of the Racial Justice Act are per se reversible.In People v. Simmons (2023) 96 Cal.App.5th 323, Justice Yegan argued in dissent that a attempting to bind the courts to a legislative definition of the constitutional term “miscarriage of justice” violates the doctrine of separation of powers.The Supreme Court in F.P. v. Monier (2017) 3 Cal.5th 1099 held that, although the Legislature mandates that trial courts make express findings on principal controverted issues, a court's failure to do so is not per se reversible because the Constitution first requires a finding that the failure worked a miscarriage of justice.In Abdelqader v. Abraham (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 10, 2022 No. D078652) --- Cal.Rptr.3d ----, failure to make the statutorily-required findings under F.C. 3044 to support awarding custody to a person previously found to have committed domestic violence was per se reversible.In re Marriage of Steiner and Hosseini (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 519 held that, although the Legislature purported to make inadequate disclosures in property-division cases per se reversible, the Legislature cannot provide “a ‘get-a-new-trial-free' card” in light of the constitutional requirement to show a miscarriage of justice.Appellate Specialist Jeff Lewis' biography, LinkedIn profile, and Twitter feed.Appellate Specialist Tim Kowal's biography, LinkedIn profile, Twitter feed, and YouTube page.Sign up for Not To Be Published, Tim Kowal's weekly legal update, or view his blog of recent cases.The California Appellate Law Podcast thanks Casetext for sponsoring the podcast. Listeners receive a discount on Casetext Basic Research at casetext.com/CALP. The co-hosts, Jeff and Tim, were also invited to try Casetext's newest technology, CoCounsel, the world's first AI legal assistant. You can discover CoCounsel for yourself with a demo and free trial at casetext.com/CoCounsel.Other items discussed in the episode:Tim's writeup on Oriostegui, The Racial Justice Act Is Unconstitutional

Every day as an appeals lawyer brings new puzzles. But some puzzles repeat. So in this episode, we compile the top 10 tips dispensed regularly to trial attorneys working in family court. They include:

The U.S. Supreme Court provides awaited guidance on public officials' use of social media, and the California Supreme Court gives a cautionary tale about waiving the right to a jury trial. Jeff and I discuss:

Raffi Melkonian has argued and won in the U.S. Supreme Court, and started the #AppellateTwitter community of appellate attorneys on Twitter/X, where he has over 65,000 followers, and speaks and writes on appeals across the country. And Raffi is here to tell you that building a business on an appellate practice—even a very successful one—is very hard to do.We discuss his five observations about why a full-time appellate practice is hard:Breaking in to the practice is very hard.Don't expect to get full-time work writing appellate briefs—you're going to have to mix it up some in the trial court.Once you've done the very hard work modifying expectations and breaking into the practice, get ready: maintaining it full-time is even harder.Which is why you are going to have to make some trade-offs.The business of law was not designed with an appellate practice in mind, so doing high-end sophisticated appeals all the time is no one's idea of a sound business model.Raffi Melkonian's biography, LinkedIn profile, and Twitter/X feed.Appellate Specialist Jeff Lewis' biography, LinkedIn profile, and Twitter feed.Appellate Specialist Tim Kowal's biography, LinkedIn profile, Twitter feed, and YouTube page.Sign up for Not To Be Published, Tim Kowal's weekly legal update, or view his blog of recent cases.The California Appellate Law Podcast thanks Casetext for sponsoring the podcast. Listeners receive a discount on Casetext Basic Research at casetext.com/CALP. The co-hosts, Jeff and Tim, were also invited to try Casetext's newest technology, CoCounsel, the world's first AI legal assistant. You can discover CoCounsel for yourself with a demo and free trial at casetext.com/CoCounsel.Other items discussed in the episode:Raffi's X thread, “5 ideas for law students and associates about appellate practice.”Videos from this episode will be posted at Tim Kowal's YouTube channel.

We discuss how to avoid appellate sanctions, and an unusually successful motion for reconsideration:$50k sanctions against appellant for blowing appellate procedure.Motion for reconsideration was untimely, but righteous. Trial judge did not take the Court of Appeal's hint, so writ issued. (But the trial judge was right to let the writ issue.)Anti-SLAPPs don't require a line-by-line list of allegations like regular strike motions. But there's a split on this.Do you need appellate specialization credits? Maybe not as many as you think if you use Lisa Perrochet's tip.We also discuss a case on the Racial Justice Act, a rare case reversed for lack of substantial evidence, and a Public Records Act case.Appellate Specialist Jeff Lewis' biography, LinkedIn profile, and Twitter feed.Appellate Specialist Tim Kowal's biography, LinkedIn profile, Twitter feed, and YouTube page.Sign up for Not To Be Published, Tim Kowal's weekly legal update, or view his blog of recent cases.The California Appellate Law Podcast thanks Casetext for sponsoring the podcast. Listeners receive a discount on Casetext Basic Research at casetext.com/CALP. The co-hosts, Jeff and Tim, were also invited to try Casetext's newest technology, CoCounsel, the world's first AI legal assistant. You can discover CoCounsel for yourself with a demo and free trial at casetext.com/CoCounsel.Other items discussed in the episode:Attorney who ignored appellate rules hit with $50k in sanctions in Mandir, Inc. v. Tiwari (D4d3 Mar. 27, 2023 No. G060437) (nonpub. opn.)Denying an untimely but meritorious motion for reconsideration was reversible error  Contreras v. Superior Court (Champion Dodge, LLC) (D2d5 Feb. 16, 2024 No. B331737) [nonpub. opn.]Splitting from SLAPP precedent, appellate court holds you don't have to do a line-by-line list of allegations challenged in an anti-SLAPP motion Miszkewycz v. County of Placer (D3 Jan. 25, 2024 No. C095426).Racial Justice Act motion requires case-specific facts, not mere statistical analysis Austin v. Superior Court (D2d2 Jan. 25, 2024 No. E080939)Read the full article at the KowalLawGroup.com blog here

There are 30,000 law clerks in the U.S., and we have no good way to know to judge their experiences. So Judge Douglas Nazarian of the Appellate Court of Maryland—and board member of the Legal Accountability Project—asks judges everywhere to take the LAP Pledge. The Project hosts a growing database of survey responses from judicial clerks, but it needs judges to pledge that they will invite their clerks to fill out the surveys.Uncomfortable taking the pledge publicly? No problem: please invite your clerks to do the survey anyway.Why should you support the Legal Accountability Project? Judge Nazarian explains:The laudable work of gathering data to facilitate quality clerkships is nothing new. Law schools do it. But that means the data is fragmented and incomplete. The LAP centralizes it.The data is credible. Only confirmed clerks can submit surveys.The data is confidential. Only clerkship applicants can access it.Still, many clerks may feel insecure about submitting a survey without their judges' endorsement.If you are a judge, please sign the pledge, and encourage your feeder law schools to support the Legal Accountability Project's work.If you are a clerk or a former, submit a survey.If you are an attorney, tell your alma mater that, next time you sign a check, you'd like to know if they support the Legal Accountability Project.Judge Douglas R. M. Nazarian's biography, LinkedIn profile, and Twitter feed.Appellate Specialist Jeff Lewis' biography, LinkedIn profile, and Twitter feed.Appellate Specialist Tim Kowal's biography, LinkedIn profile, Twitter feed, and YouTube page.Sign up for Not To Be Published, Tim Kowal's weekly legal update, or view his blog of recent cases.The California Appellate Law Podcast thanks Casetext for sponsoring the podcast. Listeners receive a discount on Casetext Basic Research at casetext.com/CALP. The co-hosts, Jeff and Tim, were also invited to try Casetext's newest technology, CoCounsel, the world's first AI legal assistant. You can discover CoCounsel for yourself with a demo and free trial at casetext.com/CoCounsel.Other items discussed in the episode:Legal Accountability ProjectLegal Accountability Project — Post-Clerkship SurveyEp. 39 and ep. 98 w/ Aliza ShatzmanVideos from this episode will be posted at Tim Kowal's YouTube channel.

You thought health and wellness was just for hippies, losers and weirdos. But you were wrong. Leslie Porter explains that if you are waiting for your health issues to become acute enough for a prescription, you are not at your best. Not only are you laying the groundwork for possible big problems down the road, you have lower energy, weakened drive, and diminished alertness.If you won't do it for yourself, get healthy to crush your enemies better.Leslie Porter's biography and LinkedIn profile and email, leslie@leslieporter.com  Appellate Specialist Jeff Lewis' biography, LinkedIn profile, and Twitter feed.Appellate Specialist Tim Kowal's biography, LinkedIn profile, Twitter feed, and YouTube page.Sign up for Not To Be Published, Tim Kowal's weekly legal update, or view his blog of recent cases.The California Appellate Law Podcast thanks Casetext for sponsoring the podcast. Listeners receive a discount on Casetext Basic Research at casetext.com/CALP. The co-hosts, Jeff and Tim, were also invited to try Casetext's newest technology, CoCounsel, the world's first AI legal assistant. You can discover CoCounsel for yourself with a demo and free trial at casetext.com/CoCounsel.Other items discussed in the episode:Videos from this episode will be posted at Tim Kowal's YouTube channel.

Next time your opposing counsel takes issue with something you say, don't be surprised to find a complaint in the next filing citing to rule 8.3 of the Rules of Professional Conduct—the new “snitch rule.”There are about a dozen terms of legal art in the snitch rule, so we asked Judge Meredith Jury (Ret.) and Certified Bankruptcy Specialist Stella Havkin what they mean:If you arguably misstate fact or law, is that a reportable event? Answer: Assume it is.What will this do to collegiality in the profession? Answer: Nothing good.If a partner committed indiscretions with the trust account, does it matter that you didn't know about it? Answer: Don't count on it.Every other state already has a snitch rule. How much guidance do they provide on its application? Answer: Very little.Will the snitch rule drive in reports to prevent Girardi-type scandals? Answer: The Bar had received some 200 reports about Girardi, so it's unclear what more reports would have done.But the snitch rule is a good idea, right? Answer: Check back in after a few years.And something you probably didn't know: The reason California doesn't follow the ABA Model Rules is because they are rules of ethics, where California's Rules are rules of discipline. We discuss the difference in theory (interesting!) and the difference in application (not much, actually).Judge Meredith Jury's (Ret.) biography.Bankruptcy Specialist Stella Havkin's biography and LinkedIn profile.Appellate Specialist Jeff Lewis' biography, LinkedIn profile, and Twitter feed.Appellate Specialist Tim Kowal's biography, LinkedIn profile, Twitter feed, and YouTube page.Sign up for Not To Be Published, Tim Kowal's weekly legal update, or view his blog of recent cases.The California Appellate Law Podcast thanks Casetext for sponsoring the podcast. Listeners receive a discount on Casetext Basic Research at casetext.com/CALP. The co-hosts, Jeff and Tim, were also invited to try Casetext's newest technology, CoCounsel, the world's first AI legal assistant. You can discover CoCounsel for yourself with a demo and free trial at casetext.com/CoCounsel.Other items discussed in the episode:Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 8.3, “Reporting Professional Misconduct”Ethics Spotlight: The New ‘Snitch Rules', California Lawyers Association, Nov. 2023.Videos from this episode will be posted at Tim Kowal's YouTube channel.

Just a few years out of law school, Kyle O'Malley won a landmark case in the Supreme Court of California. The employer's screening service in *Raines v. US Healthworks Medical Group*, 15 Cal.5th 268 (2023) used a generic questionnaire asking about menstrual cycles, hemorrhoids, hair loss, and all sorts of fool questions not tailored to the specific job (or to any job, for that matter). Even though the agent was not the “employer,” the Court held that business agents performing employment-related tasks for other companies can be held liable for discrimination under California's Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”). The decision has been described as a “landmark” victory for workers, with the California Supreme Court listing it as one of four “high profile cases” decided in 2023.We also talk with appellate legend Randy Erlewine. All California litigators owe him a debt for the “get out of jail free” card case of Carter v. Superior Court (1990) 218 Cal.App.3d 994, allowing a deposition to get documents if you missed the deadline to move to compel on written requests. We discuss developing a cutting-edge practice and building a firm to a vision.Kyle O'Malley's biography and LinkedIn profile.Randy Erlewine's biography and LinkedIn profile.Appellate Specialist Jeff Lewis' biography, LinkedIn profile, and Twitter feed.Appellate Specialist Tim Kowal's biography, LinkedIn profile, Twitter feed, and YouTube page.Sign up for Not To Be Published, Tim Kowal's weekly legal update, or view his blog of recent cases.The California Appellate Law Podcast thanks Casetext for sponsoring the podcast. Listeners receive a discount on Casetext Basic Research at casetext.com/CALP. The co-hosts, Jeff and Tim, were also invited to try Casetext's newest technology, CoCounsel, the world's first AI legal assistant. You can discover CoCounsel for yourself with a demo and free trial at casetext.com/CoCounsel.Other items discussed in the episode:CLA's Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion CommitteeRaines v. U.S. HealthWorks Med. Grp., No. S273630 (Cal. Aug. 21, 2023)Videos from this episode will be posted at Tim Kowal's YouTube channel.

The 9th Circuit is taking up the ostensible narrow issue of appealability of anti-SLAPP orders. But it could be broader. Much broader. If the court decides anti-SLAPPs are procedural rather than substantive, says Cory Webster, that would mean no more anti-SLAPP motions in federal court.We also discuss that recent panel that departed from an earlier decision, ruling it was “clearly irreconcilable” with recent Supreme Court precedent, even if it arguably wasn't.And why was that homelessness case—which ultimately came down to a procedural question of waiver—published? Did Judge Bumatay, who authored the dissent, request publication? We indulge in some rank speculation.Cory Webster's biography and LinkedIn profile.Appellate Specialist Jeff Lewis' biography, LinkedIn profile, and Twitter feed.Appellate Specialist Tim Kowal's biography, LinkedIn profile, Twitter feed, and YouTube page.Sign up for Not To Be Published, Tim Kowal's weekly legal update, or view his blog of recent cases.The California Appellate Law Podcast thanks Casetext for sponsoring the podcast. Listeners receive a discount on Casetext Basic Research at casetext.com/CALP. The co-hosts, Jeff and Tim, were also invited to try Casetext's newest technology, CoCounsel, the world's first AI legal assistant. You can discover CoCounsel for yourself with a demo and free trial at casetext.com/CoCounsel.Other items discussed in the episode:Should Anti-SLAPP denials be appealable in federal court? The 9th Circuit will take another look. Panel decision in Martinez v. ZoomInfo Techs. (No. 22-35305 (9th Cir. Jan. 18, 2024)).Rep. Raskin's anti-SLAPP billClimate Change on Trial podcastPanel rejects 9th Cir. precedent by saying it was overruled—even though it wasn't Munoz v. Superior Court of L. A. Cnty., No. 22-55941 (9th Cir. Jan. 9, 2024)In San Fran homelessness case in 9th Cir., two stark opinions about waiver Coal. On Homelessness v. City of San Francisco, No. 23-15087 (9th Cir. 2024)Videos from this episode will be posted at Tim Kowal's YouTube channel.

The Supreme Court has granted cert on whether prosecuting a homeless sidewalk-camper is cruel and unusual punishment. And the 9th Circuit has granted en banc review whether anti-SLAPP denials are appealable.Also: You are doing MSJ separate statements wrong (maybe). There are two schools of thought, and the Court of Appeal in a partially published opinion came down hard against the school that includes in the separate statement all narrative and background facts.Tim and Jeff discuss.Appellate Specialist Jeff Lewis' biography, LinkedIn profile, and Twitter feed.Appellate Specialist Tim Kowal's biography, LinkedIn profile, Twitter feed, and YouTube page.Sign up for Not To Be Published, Tim Kowal's weekly legal update, or view his blog of recent cases.The California Appellate Law Podcast thanks Casetext for sponsoring the podcast. Listeners receive a discount on Casetext Basic Research at casetext.com/CALP. The co-hosts, Jeff and Tim, were also invited to try Casetext's newest technology, CoCounsel, the world's first AI legal assistant. You can discover CoCounsel for yourself with a demo and free trial at casetext.com/CoCounsel.Other items discussed in the episode:Videos from this episode will be posted at Tim Kowal's YouTube channel.SB 662, to create electronic recordings of court proceedings, fails.In San Fran homelessness case in 9th Cir., two stark opinions about waiver Coal. On Homelessness v. City of San Francisco, No. 23-15087 (9th Cir. 2024)Beltran v. Hard Rock Hotel Licensing, Inc., No. G062736 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 5, 2023)Justice Baker is not a big fan of Costco Gylfie v. Costco Wholesale Corp. (D2d5 Dec. 27, 2023 No. B320694 [nonpub. opn.]

California law now provides for initial discovery disclosures. Get a template handy for your upcoming cases. And watch out for the new minimum $1,000 sanction for discovery misconduct.And some recent cases:The definitive answer whether orders on motion to enforce settlements are appealable is: Nobody has any friggin' idea.And the answer on how to get review of orders on contempt attorneys' fees is pretty much the same.And after scouring cases for months, Tim finally found a reversal based on an evidentiary ruling…and it's unpublished. And there's a dissent. (And the dissent may be better reasoned than the majority.) So challenges to rulings on evidence are still losers.Appellate Specialist Jeff Lewis' biography, LinkedIn profile, and Twitter feed.Appellate Specialist Tim Kowal's biography, LinkedIn profile, Twitter feed, and YouTube page.Sign up for Not To Be Published, Tim Kowal's weekly legal update, or view his blog of recent cases.The California Appellate Law Podcast thanks Casetext for sponsoring the podcast. Listeners receive a discount on Casetext Basic Research at casetext.com/CALP. The co-hosts, Jeff and Tim, were also invited to try Casetext's newest technology, CoCounsel, the world's first AI legal assistant. You can discover CoCounsel for yourself with a demo and free trial at casetext.com/CoCounsel.Other items discussed in the episode:Order granting motion to enforce settlement held not appealable, furthering a split of authority, House v. Skanska U.S. Civil W. Cal. Dist. (D4d2 Jan. 5, 2024 No. E079363) [nonpub. opn.]State wins a writ excusing it from disclosing whether its private research firm engaged in animal cruelty, Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. Superior Court (D3 Dec. 29, 2023 No. C099588) [nonpub. opn.]Yes, you can use a motion in limine as a motion for summary judgment, Memula v. Mojave Radiation Oncology Med. Grp. (D4d2 Dec. 14, 2023 No. D082262) [nonpub. opn.].See other Items at the KowalLawGroup.com blog here: https://bit.ly/3SjrXnIVideos from this episode will be posted at Tim Kowal's YouTube channel.

Yisrael Gelb focuses his appellate practice on helping plaintiff lawyers beat summary judgment. We talk about some of his approaches to successfully opposing summary judgment motions, including:

Looking back on the year's 50 episodes, we discuss some of our best guests, including our 9th Circuit correspondent, Cory Webster, our legal-writing correspondent, Ryan McCarl, our legal-movie correspondent, Gary Wax, and our inspirational public-interest appellate lawyers Chris Schandevel and Carl Cecere. There's our legal-citation-parenthetical maverick Jack Metzler. And then there are our legal scholars and authors Stephen Vladeck, Jeff Kosseff, and Eugene Volokh.After talking about some great guests, we talk about some bad cases. Why don't we talk about good cases? We discuss that, too.We also talk about some of our takeaways from our interviews about other states' appellate rules. We grumble about some of the rules in California, but we have some things to recommend to other states. But also some things we could learn.Then we turn to some of the legal tech we can't do without. Topping the list: ClearBrief (via Jackie Schafer), followed by CoCounsel.Hope to have you along in 2024!Appellate Specialist Jeff Lewis' biography, LinkedIn profile, and Twitter feed.Appellate Specialist Tim Kowal's biography, LinkedIn profile, Twitter feed, and YouTube page.Sign up for Not To Be Published, Tim Kowal's weekly legal update, or view his blog of recent cases.The California Appellate Law Podcast thanks Casetext for sponsoring the podcast. Listeners receive a discount on Casetext Basic Research at casetext.com/CALP. The co-hosts, Jeff and Tim, were also invited to try Casetext's newest technology, CoCounsel, the world's first AI legal assistant. You can discover CoCounsel for yourself with a demo and free trial at casetext.com/CoCounsel.Other items discussed in the episode:The Coming Changes to Med-Mal Caps, with Ben IkutaUsing ChatGPT responsibly, with Jayne WoodsShould AI Replace Law Clerks? Yes, says Adam UnikowskyFrom BigLaw to Solo: Carl Cecere on the freedom to take significant casesRacking Up Appellate Argument Experience with Chris SchandevelCory Webster's 9th Circuit Dispatches See other Items at the KowalLawGroup.com blog here: https://bit.ly/3viYwJrVideos from this episode will be posted at Tim Kowal's YouTube channel.

Prof. Eugene Volokh joined us to discuss restraining orders, how many of them violate the First Amendment as unlawful prior restraints, and how you can spot the First Amendment problems. The purpose of a restraining orders is to get a person to stop harassing you, but “harassment” can be a pretty vague term—and the same goes for “bullying,” “cyberbullying,” “hate speech,” etc.—especially when no physical violence threatened or happening. The result is that many restraining orders not only prevent the subject from speaking TO the plaintiff, but from speaking ABOUT the plaintiff, and last INDEFINITELY.Here are the key issues to spot the next time a client calls you about a restraining order or injunction that affects free speech:Raise First Amendment challenges, and get familiar with the precedent by reading Prof. Volokh's articles.Look to see if the restraining order merely prohibits speaking to the plaintiff, or goes further and prohibits speaking ABOUT the plaintiff. That's a big difference that implicates the First Amendment.If the subject of a restraining order is facing contempt, consider raising the unconstitutionality of the order as a collateral bar. An unconstitutional order cannot be a basis for contempt, and unconstitutionality is never waived.Prof. Eugene Volokh's biography, LinkedIn profile, and X/Twitter feed.Appellate Specialist Jeff Lewis' biography, LinkedIn profile, and Twitter feed.Appellate Specialist Tim Kowal's biography, LinkedIn profile, Twitter feed, and YouTube page.Sign up for Not To Be Published, Tim Kowal's weekly legal update, or view his blog of recent cases.The California Appellate Law Podcast thanks Casetext for sponsoring the podcast. Listeners receive a discount on Casetext Basic Research at casetext.com/CALP. The co-hosts, Jeff and Tim, were also invited to try Casetext's newest technology, CoCounsel, the world's first AI legal assistant. You can discover CoCounsel for yourself with a demo and free trial at casetext.com/CoCounsel.Other items discussed in the episode:One-to-One Speech vs. One-to-Many Speech, Criminal Harassment Laws, and “Cyberstalking”, 107 Nw. U. L. Rev. 731 (2013)Overbroad Injunctions Against Speech (Especially in Libel and Harassment Cases), 45 Harv. J. L. & Pub. Pol. 147 (2022).Organization for a Better Austin v. Keefe, 402 U.S. 415 (1971)Chan v. Ellis, 296 Ga. 838 (Ga. 2015)"The First Amendment and Refusals to Deal” via ReasonVideos from this episode will be posted at Tim Kowal's YouTube channel.

Employment and class-action attorney Glenn Danas has argued 49 appeals in state and federal appellate courts throughout the country, including a current streak of eight consecutive reversals. Glenn talks with us about litigating the landmark Iskanian case, and how he turned the panel that initially issued a 148-page tentative against his client.Glenn also shares:Appeals on contingency? Yes, it can work, in the right case.About that ABC test: yes, some workers would prefer to be contractors, but more would rather be employees.About the judicial bias for arbitration: the original purpose was for those oddball cases—think shipwrecks—where jurisdiction and venue were uncertain, not for every garden-variety lawsuit.Glenn Danas's biography, LinkedIn profile, and X (fka Twitter) feed.Appellate Specialist Jeff Lewis' biography, LinkedIn profile, and Twitter feed.Appellate Specialist Tim Kowal's biography, LinkedIn profile, Twitter feed, and YouTube page.Sign up for Not To Be Published, Tim Kowal's weekly legal update, or view his blog of recent cases.The California Appellate Law Podcast thanks Casetext for sponsoring the podcast. Listeners receive a discount on Casetext Basic Research at casetext.com/CALP. The co-hosts, Jeff and Tim, were also invited to try Casetext's newest technology, CoCounsel, the world's first AI legal assistant. You can discover CoCounsel for yourself with a demo and free trial at casetext.com/CoCounsel.Other items discussed in the episode:Iskanian v. CLS Transp. Los Angeles, LLCFuentes v. Empire Nissan, Inc. (Dave Ettinger's write-up)LA Times on Beachbody class-actionVideos from this episode will be posted at Tim Kowal's YouTube channel.

Turns out you CAN shout “fire” in a crowded theater, and lots of other lies besides—unless the government meets a heavy burden, that is. The author of four books and more than 20 academic articles, First Amendment scholar and Naval Academy associate professor Jeff Kosseff makes the case for the freedom to speak freely, and even to tell lies, free (mostly) from threat of state sanction. Our discussion covers:The “marketplace of ideas” is better than the government at separating truth from lies.Why every other state and Congress should just copy-and-paste California's anti-SLAPP statute into their code books.Is there a free-speech right to ChatGPT, if there's no human speaker? Yes—there is not just a right to make statements, but also to receive them.Jeff was surprised at the critical reaction to his thesis that there may be a right to lie. But thankfully the courts have mostly stood by the First Amendment's robust protections, receiving an B+/A- grade from Prof. Kosseff.Jeff Kosseff's biography, LinkedIn profile, and Twitter feed.Appellate Specialist Jeff Lewis' biography, LinkedIn profile, and Twitter feed.Appellate Specialist Tim Kowal's biography, LinkedIn profile, Twitter feed, and YouTube page.Sign up for Not To Be Published, Tim Kowal's weekly legal update, or view his blog of recent cases.The California Appellate Law Podcast thanks Casetext for sponsoring the podcast. Listeners receive a discount on Casetext Basic Research at casetext.com/CALP. The co-hosts, Jeff and Tim, were also invited to try Casetext's newest technology, CoCounsel, the world's first AI legal assistant. You can discover CoCounsel for yourself with a demo and free trial at casetext.com/CoCounsel.Other items discussed in the episode:Jeff Kosseff's book is Liar in a Crowded Theater.The California statute prohibiting doctors from expressing opinions contrary to official medical policy as concerning vaccines and perhaps other topics was enjoined by the district court in early 2023: https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/california-law-aiming-curb-covid-misinformation-blocked-by-judge-2023-01-26/.Videos from this episode will be posted at Tim Kowal's YouTube channel.

In a recent opinion, the Court of Appeal reversed by noting that one of the grounds supporting the judgment was forfeited…by the respondent.Wait. By the respondent? An appellant must be careful not to forfeit argument, but not the respondent. We discuss, and express gratitude that this one was not published—and thus cannot be cited as precedent.We also discuss:Have a short trial? Volunteer to be timekeeper. Otherwise, your request for a statement of decision may be deemed untimely under the strict rules for trials under 8 hours.Suing for unfair business practices? Double check standing based on “injury in fact,” and consider the conflicting arguments in the majority and dissent in Lagrisola v. North American.Opposing counsel stepping over the line of “zealous advocacy”? Court of Appeal calls out counsel in a recent case, but no sanctions—perhaps because respondent did not file a motion?A strange example of a moot appeal leading to a summary REVERSAL.Appellate Specialist Jeff Lewis' biography, LinkedIn profile, and Twitter feed.Appellate Specialist Tim Kowal's biography, LinkedIn profile, Twitter feed, and YouTube page.Sign up for Not To Be Published, Tim Kowal's weekly legal update, or view his blog of recent cases.The California Appellate Law Podcast thanks Casetext for sponsoring the podcast. Listeners receive a discount on Casetext Basic Research at casetext.com/CALP. The co-hosts, Jeff and Tim, were also invited to try Casetext's newest technology, CoCounsel, the world's first AI legal assistant. You can discover CoCounsel for yourself with a demo and free trial at casetext.com/CoCounsel.Other items discussed in the episode:**Can a respondent forfeit issues by failing to brief them? A bizarre opinion says yes. Baltazar v. ACE Parking Mgmt. (D4d1 Oct. 26, 2023 No. D081483) [nonpub. opn.]**Failing to log the length of trial leads to appellate loss. Lewis v. Reptile Factory, LLC (D2d3 Oct. 12, 2023 No. B324197) [nonpub. opn.]Dissent would invalidate loan where lender is unlicensed. Lagrisola v. North American (D4d1 Nov. 3, 2023 No. D080758)**“Bulldozer” advocacy moves dirt but not minds. Tedesco v. White (D4d3 Oct. 27, 2023 No. G061197) [nonpub. opn.]**Where a moot appeal means summary REVERSAL. People v. Pickens (D2d7 Nov. 9, 2023 No. B320704) [nonpub. opn.]Videos from this episode will be posted at Tim Kowal's YouTube channel.

Trial resulted in a sizable judgment against your client. You know to stay judgment enforcement you have to post a bond, but what, exactly, does that mean? And how do you do it?Enter Dan Huckabay from Court Surety Bond Agency. We sit down with Dan and ask him how we attorneys can be a hero for our clients by knowing a few key things about appellate bonds, such as:Plan ahead: Before judgment is entered, give the client time to set aside collateral for the bond.Manage expectations: Judgment interest in California is a hefty 10%, and the bond premium ranges from a quarter percent to 4%, with most premiums being about 1%.Consider a letter of credit: If the client has a strong relationship, the bank may issue a letter of credit—which avoids the need to tie up collateral.Was the judgment amended to add fees and costs? Instead of getting a new bond, consider a rider or a separate bond.Don't wait! There's no deadline to post a bond, but waiting can lead to assets getting seized or liened on.Dan Huckabay's biography, LinkedIn profile, and Twitter feed.Appellate Specialist Jeff Lewis' biography, LinkedIn profile, and Twitter feed.Appellate Specialist Tim Kowal's biography, LinkedIn profile, Twitter feed, and YouTube page.Sign up for Not To Be Published, Tim Kowal's weekly legal update, or view his blog of recent cases.The California Appellate Law Podcast thanks Casetext for sponsoring the podcast. Listeners receive a discount on Casetext Basic Research at casetext.com/CALP. The co-hosts, Jeff and Tim, were also invited to try Casetext's newest technology, CoCounsel, the world's first AI legal assistant. You can discover CoCounsel for yourself with a demo and free trial at casetext.com/CoCounsel.Other items discussed in the episode:Ep. 46: Time to Collect: Joseph Chora on the Most Important but Least Understood Area of LawVideos from this episode will be posted at Tim Kowal's YouTube channel.

Ryan McCarl, author of the latest book on legal writing, Elegant Legal Writing, sits down with us to discuss why now, more than ever, attorneys need to elevate beyond ChatGPT and distractions to rise to our role as teachers of the law. Ryan offers these actionable tips:

Appellate courts are in the affirming business. But be ready to take advantage of easy reversals, like in these examples:

Ninth Circuit correspondent Cory Webster joins us to discuss the court's unusually busy en banc docket and its own species of “shadow docket.” We discuss how parties and judges are moving a few hot-button cases into procedural positions that may suggest what the merits decision will be—but without really touching the merits.We discuss:Gun Rights: The 9th Circuit used a “comeback” procedure to send a case back to the same en banc panel that heard the case before the Supreme Court's new Bruen test. The Procedural Trick: Judge Nelson says this “disenfranchises” other circuit judges who will be cut out of any say on how the old panel approaches the new Bruen test.Abortion Rights: After a 3-judge panel granted a stay motion, thus staying a district court injunction of Idaho's abortion ban, the 9th Circuit voted to rehear the matter en banc, and thus re-implemented the district court's injunction (meaning abortions may go forward despite the law). The Procedural Trick: Now that the en banc has taken up the motion, it will likely hold on to the case on the merits, too. That means expedited briefing and decision, and no possibility of further en banc review.En banc review granted where the 3-judge panel vacated a sentence because a prosecutor breached a plea a greement.En banc review denied, despite 11 judges (very close to a majority) who would have granted.Cory Webster's biography and LinkedIn profile.Appellate Specialist Jeff Lewis' biography, LinkedIn profile, and Twitter feed.Appellate Specialist Tim Kowal's biography, LinkedIn profile, Twitter feed, and YouTube page.Sign up for Not To Be Published, Tim Kowal's weekly legal update, or view his blog of recent cases.The California Appellate Law Podcast thanks Casetext for sponsoring the podcast. Listeners receive a discount on Casetext Basic Research at casetext.com/CALP. The co-hosts, Jeff and Tim, were also invited to try Casetext's newest technology, CoCounsel, the world's first AI legal assistant. You can discover CoCounsel for yourself with a demo and free trial at casetext.com/CoCounsel.Other items discussed in the episode:Gun Rights: Duncan v. Bonta, No. 23-55805, at *6 (9th Cir. Oct. 10, 2023)Judge Van Dyke's cheeky “concurrence” to his own majority decision last year in McDougall v. County of Ventura. (Ep. 26.)Suspended Judge Newman Discusses Her 'Proclivity of Dissenting' at ABA EventUnited States v. Idaho, No. 23-35440 (9th Cir. Sep. 28, 2023)United States v. State, No. 23-35440 (9th Cir. Oct. 10, 2023)Videos from this episode will be posted at Tim Kowal's YouTube channel.

Have you ever had trouble e-file something and had someone tell you to try a different web browser? When it comes to the CM/ECF system used by federal courts, that problem has to do with aging technology reliant on “java” plugins, which have security problems. Susan Gelmis, the Chief Deputy Clerk for Operations, explains why the 9th Circuit is leaving the CM/ECF system, in favor of a new, more secure, and fully web-based (not plugin-reliant) system called the Appellant Case Management System, or ACMS.The 9th Circuit is also saying goodbye to remote oral arguments. Starting January 2024, all oral arguments will be in-person, unless you make a showing of hardship.Want meaningful work and oral argument experience? Apply to the 9th Circuit Pro Bono Program.We discuss other 9th Circuit inside baseball, like hyperlinked briefs.Susan Gelmis's LinkedIn profile.Appellate Specialist Jeff Lewis' biography, LinkedIn profile, and Twitter feed.Appellate Specialist Tim Kowal's biography, LinkedIn profile, Twitter feed, and YouTube page.Sign up for Not To Be Published, Tim Kowal's weekly legal update, or view his blog of recent cases.The California Appellate Law Podcast thanks Casetext for sponsoring the podcast. Listeners receive a discount on Casetext Basic Research at casetext.com/CALP. The co-hosts, Jeff and Tim, were also invited to try Casetext's newest technology, CoCounsel, the world's first AI legal assistant. You can discover CoCounsel for yourself with a demo and free trial at casetext.com/CoCounsel.Other items discussed in the episode:Here is the link to the efiling in ACMS page that has information and instructions and training videos about the new system https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/efiling/acms/Administrative Order Regarding ACMS: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2023/06/16/Admin-order-final-June-2023.pdfACMS Portal: https://ca9-portal.powerappsportals.us/Oral Argument Protocols here.Here is a link to information about the pro bono program: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/probono/Videos from this episode will be posted at Tim Kowal's YouTube channel.