A scandalous Netflix documentary called an unconventional sex-based therapy business an “orgasm cult,” all based on a sole source whose account has several flaws. But the Court of Appeal dismissed the defamation case on anti-SLAPP grounds. Tim and Jeff discuss whether any California defamation case against a media company could survive the one-two punch of anti-SLAPP and NY Times v. Sullivan. They also discuss California’s unique approach to standing—it’s not jurisdictional, it’s purely pragm...
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 law. And the courts are super-protective against our legal canon becoming polluted with hall...
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 ruling. Taking Offense v. State (Cal., Nov. 6, 2025, No. S270535) **holds that advocacy groups lack taxpay...
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 Doctrine Evolution: Courts are scrutinizing what constitutes concrete injury, particularly since Justi...
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 yourself behind by skating to where it is now. The $5 Billion Opportunity: Clio CEO Jack Newton s...
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 respondent’s brief because of the Boies Schiller attorneys hallucinated cases and otherwise wrong ...
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 to embrace AI tools without anxiety (or with the appropriate amount of anxiety), starting with i...
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 teaches newly appointed appellate judges how to make their opinions more readable through proper structure...
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 final judgments, not collateral orders like qualified immunity denials.Anti-SLAPP Motion Timing: Mora ...
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 the Court's silent de-publishing practices.Deny a request for admission in a one-way fee-shifting ...
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 senior associates and partners, and why good writing—even in a losing case—is always worth the effort....
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. Employer litigator Monte Grix explains how PAGA evolved into their “headless” form. Monte, Tim, and...
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 President—an office that plays no constitutional role in the VP’s role regarding the electoral vot...
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 concur...
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.The Climategate saga continues: when 12-years of anti-SLAPP litigation does not end Dr. Michael Ma...
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 address excessive executive power. The Court did not reach the merits of the Natural Born Citizensh...
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 Circuit striking down San Diego’s ban.A study on televised oral arguments reveals that camera angles—an...
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 rest of us!)Case settled, but wire of settled funds intercepted by scammers. Who bears the b...
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,” J...
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 and Democratic administrations. But will the Court use this case to impose limits? We discuss: Pla...