8th Annual Advanced Appellate Practice (CA) (OnDemand Streaming or Recorded Packages)

What You Will Learn

What You Will Learn

Ethics Update

• The substantial relationship test and informed consent after Sheppard Mullin v. J-M Manufacturing – when it gets real on appeal.
• Arguing potentially adverse interests on behalf of multiple clients.
• Duties of competence, candor and disclosure to clients and the tribunal.

Sealed and Confidential Records: Keeping Your Client’s Secrets Out of the Public Eye in the Court of Appeal

• Whose Job is it?
• Sealed v. Confidential — Is there really any difference?
• What can and cannot be closed to public inspection? (AKA The Pitfalls of Trial Court Stipulated Confidentiality Orders).
• Writing and redacting your argument.

Arguing Against the Grain:
How to Argue Against Stare Decisis and How to Argue Against a Petition for Review When There is a Split of Authority.

• Is stare decisis dead, gravely ill, or “doing just fine, thank you”?
• When is stare decisis at its strongest or weakest?
• What tests and factors do courts use when considering reversing established precedent?
• What differences are there between CA and federal courts?
• What factors can be argued that review should not be granted despite a clear split in published cases

Appeals from TROs and Preliminary Injunctions.

• Timing
• Whether orders not labeled as such are injunctions

Raising New Issues on Appeal

• Jurisdictional issues
• Mootness
• Standing
• Judicial notice
  -Legislative history
• New arguments on preserved issues
  -If legal
  -In the absence of prejudice
• Questions of law on undisputed facts
  -To facilitate affirmance
  -Discretionary
• Evidentiary issues
• Instructional issues
• Insufficiency of the evidence
• Inconsistent jury verdicts

What Not to Do in Briefing and Oral Argument.

Covid-19 and the Appellate Courts: What is the New Normal? 

• An update on oral argument formats in each court
• What justices prefer and why
• Suggestions on best practices for arguing remotely

Serving as Appellate Counsel in the Trial Court

• How can an appellate lawyer be of greatest benefit to trial counsel?
• Should an appellate lawyer ever play the lead role in the trial court?
• What do trial judges make of appellate counsel’s involvement?

Sponsored by:

Testimonials

“I look forward to this program every year.  The speakers are always fantastic, the topics are always interesting and useful, and the appellate specialization credit is a huge bonus.  This year’s program more than lived up to my expectations.” – Tiffany J. Gates, Esq.

“Fantastic seminar. One of the best I’ve ever seen.” – Kym Speer, Esq.

“Pincus consistently provides first-rate, legal education programs on timely topics with excellent speakers. After attending its programs in multiple states for nearly two decades, I can confidently say Pincus always delivers, and I am a better attorney for having regularly followed its programs.” Robert Little, California

“Very useful information and insights, including what happens inside appellate courts, from the BEST, most knowledgeable sources.” – Jay-Allen Eisen, Esq.

“Useful insights from an insider in the 9th Circuit. Briefs session was hugely satisfying for my inner appellate nerd. I particularly enjoyed how Justice Banke compared what she used to think was important as a practitioner vs. what she now finds important as an appellate court justice. Very helpful! I greatly appreciated Justice Streeter’s openness and honesty. I’ve seen Justice Chin speak several times, and he never disappoints! Always a pleasure to watch.” – Tiffany J. Gates, Esq.

“I often attend MCLE just to get the credits. Pincus programs are interesting, useful, have excellent handouts, and the time is used wisely.” – Christopher D. Lockwood, Esq.

“Very useful, informative program. Every speaker was excellent!” – Kevin Meek, Esq.

“Consistently the best live CLE I attend each year. Not to be missed! This isn’t just a refresher on the basics. This brings clarity to real challenges in appellate practice with the top experts in the field.” – Joshua Furman, Esq.

“As always, excellent speakers and content. Very informative with practical and useful anecdotes.” – Marisa Janine-Page, Esq.

“Excellent program; topics that don’t merely rehash the usual, but provide a deeper discussion of issues important to appellate lawyers.” – Glenn Danas, Esq.

“I have participated in this course just about every year since its inception, and it consistently meets my objectives.” – Robert Collings Little, Esq. 

“Excellent!  I look forward to attending other Pincus programs.” – David M. Arbogast, Esq.

“This is always my favorite program of the year. The variety of topics and the quality of the speakers provide interesting insights and excellent practical advice.” – Lori Sebransky, Esq.

“Every year, this program provides impactful feedback from active appellate justices that I incorporate into my practice. Thank you very much for organizing.” – Jenna Parker, Esq.

“Beyond our expectations. Very useful to us. To Stephen Mayer – Wow. Thank you for waking up the right mindset and strategy. Justice Banke’s perspective was on target.” – Larry Peluso, Esq.

“If you only attend one live CLE a year, make sure it is the Pincus Advanced Appellate Seminar.” – Joshua R. Furman, Esq.

“Excellent programs. The presenters are top rate and it is always nice to get insight form the actual judges and justices about things happening behind the curtains.” – Jeremy Robinson, Esq.

“Excellent seminar. It’s one of the best I have attended.” – Bob Lucas, Esq.

“I was aiming to gain insight on the appellate system and gain tips to assist my future endeavors in the court. I feel much more confident in my abilities! The handbook was very helpful and informative. I enjoyed the webinar format.” – Gina Simas, Esq.

“Every year this program has great topics from excellent speakers with practical and useful information” – Sarah Birmingham, Esq.

“Great job, as usual!” – John Kinsey, Esq.

“All the speakers were good, and the material was appropriate.” – Paul A Lax, Esq.

“It is a good range of topics and excellent speakers. I have never been to a bad Pincus program.” – Christopher D. Lockwood, Esq.

“Excellent speakers…Great handouts.” – Ira Salzman, Esq.

“Excellent presenters and relevant subject matter, helping keep me current and sharp on crucial appellate issues.” – Glenn Danas, Esq.

“I have participated in this course just about every year since its inception, and it consistently meets my objectives.” – Robert Collings Little, Esq.

“My personal objectives were to listen, learn, and gain new insights to improve my practice. Mission accomplished.” Jenna E. Parker, Esq.

“Fantastic sophisticated advice for practitioners.”

“Excellent, as always!” – Marisa Janine-Page, Esq.

“Recognized appellate speakers. Good content and practical insights.” – David Lantzer, Esq.

“I loved it. thank you!” – Alex Volkov, Esq.

“Excellent, informative program. Presentations from judges were especially useful, and Ben Shatz is a very good moderator.” – Ryan Wu, Esq.

“I attend lots of CLE courses – significantly more than required. This program was outstanding! Careful selection of topics and presenters. This was my first Pincus course. It will not be my last.” – Steven Finell, Esq.

“This was a great program.  I feel charged up for my next appellate matter and armed with many tips.” – Amanda F. Benedict, Esq.

“Great use of knowledgeable and credible presenters. Truly an excellent program; well-thought out with valuable information.”

“I attended last year’s appellate conference. It was so helpful and informative that I wanted to attend this year’s conference.” – Linda N. Wisotsky, Esq.

“I attended the seminar to learn about cutting-edge appellate issues. The seminar exceeded my expectations and I learned a ton. I greatly enjoyed the seminar and look forward to attending in the future.” – Kevin Meek, Esq.

“Excellent as usual. The insights from Justices and expert practitioners are so valuable.” – Lori A. Sebransky, Esq.

“Another great program – you never disappoint.”

“Surpassed my expectation. This was an excellent program.” – Bruce Finch, Esq.

“Thank you. The program, panelists, and participants were excellent.” – Teresa Stinson, Esq.

“All were excellent!” – Stephen V. Masterson, Esq.  

“Excellent coverage of COVID 19 issues.” – Douglas Everett Klein, Esq. 

“Great interactive dialogue between the speakers.” – Amanda F. Benedict, Esq.  

“As always, a worthwhile seminar and glad I could attend remotely. Very much looking forward to Part II.”

“I found the first part on the collateral order doctrine the most useful and informative.  The appellate writ section was most useful for the notion that asking for a suggestive Palma order should be considered for writs in general.  The Supreme Court section was useful for the grant and hold discussion.”

“It was a wonderful and very informative program. The speakers were loaded with so much information that you cannot acquire without being an attendee. Great speakers!” – Blanca C. Vaughan, Esq.

“It was an informative seminar, full of practical information. Excellent program.” – John Yasuda, Esq.

“Having Justice Groban on to explain the process before the Supreme Court was immensely informative.”

“Excellent. A++.”

“Justice Rivera was very good, detailed, and interesting. Harry Chamberlain was a very good speaker. This was a terrific panel!” – Steve Mayer, Esq.

“Great to hear about recent changes. Justice Miller had thoughtful comments. Justice Grimes’ perspective was helpful.”

“Excellent and comprehensive, as usual.” – Brian Beckwith, Esq.

“As usual, addresses the ‘advanced’ issues facing appellate attorneys. And as always, knowledgeable presenters.”

“Still one of the best CLE programs.” – Joshua R. Furman, Esq.

“Ben Shatz was an absolutely fantastic moderator. The first two panels also were fantastic – so interesting, organized, and the content was unique, useful, and delivered efficiently.”

“Excellent content, expertly presented, excellent program! I’m trying to resume active appellate practice after years of preoccupation with family care issues – this program was a great start!” – Bruce Finch, Esq.

“Such useful information (on the 9th Circuit). Thank you! Love all the anecdotal wisdom Wendy Lascher shares. Kent Richland had great practical experience and excellent tips. Thank you for including Justice Miller! So helpful to hear that side. Judge Klatchko is so smart and I love all the rules and guides she contributed to the presentation. Harry Chamberlain is always amazing! It’s impressive how Effie Cogan knows every detail of every appellate case. I love when she’s a panelist!” – Marisa Janine-Page, Esq.

“The best part was the inside the Ninth Circuit program. I do a lot of work in that court and found the descriptions of its operations fascinating.” – Richard L Antognini, Esq.

“Having a ‘behind-the-scenes’ perspective on the appellate courts’ workings is very valuable. I handle 2-3 writs/appeals per month and this subject matter is useful. Very engaging speakers. The judicial perspective is highly informative.” – Sean Collins, Esq.

“Thank you. The program, panelists, and participants were excellent.” – Teresa Stinson, Esq.

“Greatly appreciated the program, it was right on the edge of what is happening today. I am coming back!” – Alex Vollkov, Esq.

“Having appellate court justices on the panels (both state and federal) have been extremely illuminating this year.”

“Year in, year out this is the best MCLE seminar for experienced appellate lawyers.” – Tom Freeman, Esq.

“I appreciated the opening discussion on federal (9th Circuit) law and procedure.” – Justin R. Sarno, Esq.

“A fast-moving program – covered a lot of ground.”  – Lisa Ungerer, Esq.

“A very good panel of speakers with good diversity in topics.” – Robert Mata, Esq.

“Very informative. Definitely one of the better or best CLE I have attended.”

“All great topics.” – Richard P. Fisher, Esq.

“Excellent as always!” – Lori Sebransky, Esq.

“All presenters are great. There were a lot of good nuggets that I will use in my practice.” – Linda Conrad, Esq.

“I am an appellate specialist, and this program provides updates on changes in appellate procedures as well as helpful tips on appellate practice.” 

“Well done as always. Nice selection of topics.” – Deborah Bull, Esq.

“The program was wonderful, as usual. I liked that it was split up into two separate parts/days.  That made it much easier to fit into my schedule.  Additionally, the topics were truly “advanced” and timely — particularly the discussion about presenting remote oral arguments.  The whole program was great!  I look forward to attending again next year. :-)” – Tiffany J. Gates, Esq.

“The speakers are always dynamic — I particularly enjoyed the mix of practitioners and judges/justices this year — and the topics are always helpful to my practice.  This year was no exception.”

“The state and federal court appellate practice mix was just right. Great to hear from judges and court staff about real-world issues (COVID arguments, procedures, etc.) we all are dealing with (we go work to present our cases at the same place the court’s people do, good to hear what makes it easier)” – Harry Chamberlain, Esq

“The topics were interesting and helpful to my practice.” – Jessica Simon, Esq.

“This is an excellent program. I would recommend it. I found the panel to be very thoughtful and engaged with the purpose of educating the audience.” – Elizabeth Rhodes, Esq.

“My personal objectives were to listen, learn, and gain new insights to improve my practice. Mission accomplished.” Jenna E. Parker, Esq.

“Excellent coverage of COVID 19 issues.” – Douglas Everett Klein, Esq.

“Great interactive dialogue between the speakers.” – Amanda F. Benedict, Esq.

“Great to hear directly from the justices about their in-house practices; the kitchen sink, that’s a hoot!” – Harry Chamberlain, Esq.

“All were excellent!” – Stephen V. Masterson, Esq.

“This is precisely the kind of extra training I need, especially with the handouts. I have confidence that this will be my first step in research when these issues come across my desk because I will know exactly what the Judges are looking for.”

“This program exceeded my expectations. The speakers were dynamic and brilliant, and the topics were incredibly helpful to my practice. I’ll be using this information for years to come… It was great!” – Tiffany J. Gates, Esq.

“Highly professional and substantive presentation.”

“I always take away important ideas and tweak my practices following a Pincus Appellate Summit.” – Leslie Ellen Shear, Esq.

“The content at this program was very useful.” – Sarah Birmingham, Esq.

“This is a great advanced seminar. Very high-level, informative presentations.” – Tom Freeman, Esq.

“This is always an excellent seminar! Great practical advice by the masters.” – Marisa Janine-Page, Esq.

“The program lived up to the description, which is high praise.” – Madeline Miller, Esq.

“Enjoyed some of the more arcane subjects. Excellent review of the more familiar subjects.”

“Enjoyed the program. Enjoyed Judge Klatchko’s discussion of standards of review. Great program.  Particularly on the Supreme Court and Standards of Review.”

“I was very impressed with the discussion on statutory interpretation.” – John L. Jones II, Esq.

“I’m glad I came and definitely glad I joined the networking lunch.” – Rochelle Wilcox, Esq.

“Excellent and different than ‘the usual’. Very innovative choice of subjects of importance to appellate specialists.”

“Enjoyed the program. Enjoyed Judge Klatchko’s discussion of standards of review.”

“One of the best CLEs every year.” – Sarah Birmingham, Esq.

“Every year this program has great topics from excellent speakers with practical and useful information.” – Sarah Birmingham, Esq. 

“I love Pincus-produced lectures and seminars. Excellent appellate information, very thorough handouts and materials.”

“Excellent and relevant as usual.” – Brian Beckwith, Esq.

“Good content and speakers.” – Tom Freeman, Esq.

“I learned a lot, and enjoyed the variety of topics discussed. I also appreciated hearing from speakers with ‘boots on the ground’ perspective about the various technical issues the court has seen arise now that most proceedings are remote.”

“Excellent and well put together seminar.”

“Great stuff.” – Abram Genser, Esq.

“Wonderful. The program was very enlightening and amazing. The tips are incredible and very refreshing and although they seemed intuitive, they truly are not.” – Francisco Javier Aldana, Esq.

“I chose this program because I’m a previous attendee and have enjoyed it.”

“Second year taking this course. Great information, speakers, and lots of ideas, tips and suggestions. Thanks, I’ll be back next year!” – John Stobart, Esq.

“As usual all of the speakers were excellent in both knowledge and presentation. I was also impressed with your staff. My secretary inadvertently signed me up for a recording rather than attending live. That was quickly and efficiently remedied.”

“I am an appellate specialist, and this program provides updates on changes in appellate procedures as well as helpful tips on appellate practice.”

“Excellent comprehensive program.”

“Broader (and better) scope than expected. Another excellent program.” – Marisa Janine-Page, Esq.

“I’ve been to several of these seminars over the years and I’ve generally enjoyed them.”

“Excellent content and delivery; very practical information and insight.”

“I really enjoyed the conversational feel between the speakers.”

“Excellent content and very up to date advice (Covid changes to procedures)”- Shirley Gauvin, Esq.

“Great program as always.” – Susan Horst, Esq.

“While advanced, this was a great overview of appellate issues.” – Brian Mahler, Esq.

“Year in and year out this is the most useful and interesting of the many CLE seminars I’ve attended.”

“Great program, wouldn’t change anything.” – Glenn Danas, Esq.

“Lovely and pleasant, very satisfied. Thanks.” – Nathan W. Gabbard, Esq.

“Excellent information all around. The insight from Justice Segal about his division’s and his personal decision-making process and considerations was extremely useful.”

“Good, vigorous discussion.”

“Much better than the average MCLE courses. It was well thought out and well-presented. I look forward to taking more Pincus courses.” – Earl L. Roberts, Esq.

“Great job, as usual!” – John Kinsey, Esq.  

“All the speakers were good, and the material was appropriate.” – Paul A Lax, Esq.  

“Excellent presentations.”

“Great program.” – Sara Birmingham, Esq.

“The program is great and incredibly informative.”

“The program lived up to my expectations. The topics were interesting, and the speakers were engaging (a particularly tough task in this virtual world).  I’m looking forward to Part 2 on Thursday!” – Tiffany J. Gates, Esq.

“Great seminar!! So much great, practical information I can use.”

“This program was very helpful.” – Ellen R. Serbin, Esq.

“Great program, very good content.”

“Overall, great program. The second day’s program provided engaging discussions and helpful information on the advanced appellate practice issues I hoped would be covered when I signed up.”

“Day 2 was fantastic. So much good information and insights.”

“Excellent program – good choice of topics and speakers.”

“Faith Pincus always puts on a great program. I like the recordings on CD. I listen to them in the car.”

“Excellent program and great speakers.”

“Greg Wolff was worth the price of admission on his own.”

“Excellent program and great speakers.” – (Thomas) Christopher Johns, Esq.

“I like the speakers and how they each bring a different perspective. It helps when they all discuss their own opinion on a topic to hear different takes.”

“Excellent program, I wouldn’t change anything.”

“Learned a lot and will definitely recommend.”

“Excellent program.  Last three panels were especially good.” – Deborah Drooz, Esq.

“Learned some valuable things.” – Lawrence P. Hellman, Esq.

“Good speakers, good topics, right length. Breaking it across two days is great for video conferences.”

“Liked the diversity of opinion with the other panelist.”

“Excellent program!”

“Great mix of topics!”

“Excellent program. Great information and insight for high-level practicing appellate attorneys.”

“Good choice of topics.” – Wendy Lascher, Esq.

“Excellent program. I wouldn’t change anything.”

“I hoped to have a good panel on oral argument, and another on agency appeals. These were great.” – Daniel Trump, Esq.

“Fantastic sophisticated advice for practitioners.”

“Appreciated the practical and timely remote appearance advice.”

“Excellent program. I’ve just started appellate work and wanted to learn more. This program was quite good. Thank you!”

“Good to hear tips for video arguments and the discussion Justice Groban was enlightening.”

“I enjoyed the program, particularly the variety of speakers and mix of discussion about both technical and legally substantive issues.”

“Excellent program. Very practical stuff.”

“I enjoyed the practical tips and suggestions on brief writing.”

“Excellent program.” – Shirley A. Gauvin, Esq.

“I gained resources that will be extremely helpful regarding timing of motions.”

“Excellent, informative, enjoyable – all of the speakers did a great job.”

“Excellent program.”

“I especially like having some justices and some practitioners and the interaction among them.”

“Good discussion and insight.”

“It’s informative and useful for my practice.”

“It was very good, particularly the oral argument section.”

“As usual, very information and excellent panelists.”

“As always, an excellent program with important information provided by excellent panelists.”

“Excellent!”

“Great, as always. Thank you very much for doing this, Faith and your team.”

“Excellent.” – Ryan Artola, Esq.

“Good, clean presentation with useful discussion feel as opposed to lecturing on and on.”

“For me, the discussion by Colantuono, Chamberlin and Ming was most interesting.”

“Found issues related to trial court level and what might become appellate issues as a result very interesting and helpful. Also great advice on how to handle a writ when docs/transcripts are missing was excellent.”

“Good and thorough program.”

“Good solid program.”

“I thought it was a great overview of all the different topics. The resource material looks to be very thorough and will be a good reference.”

“Great content, very informative.”

“Very practical and would definitely attend again and recommend to others.”

“Great presentations overall. I have been practicing civil litigation for one year and had many “aha!” moments.”

“Great program.  Particularly on the Supreme Court and Standards of Review.”

“I am coming back!”

“Great seminar. Simply an excellent program, good choice of topics and the speakers were great.”

“I thought it was really good. The speakers were well prepared, and not rambling, and the presentations were on point.”

“Great seminar.”

“I really appreciated the real-world portions of the program.”

“John Taylor did a wonderful job of explaining complex appellate issues to a non-appellate attorney, such as myself. I greatly enjoyed his presentation.” – Kevin Meek, Esq.

“I am a practicing appellate attorney and I heard good things about this seminar. All the speakers were very knowledgeable and presented well and kept my interest – and the materials in the appendix were very useful.”

“I appreciate the program’s practical advice on navigating online oral argument.”

“The justices are incredibly valuable. Thanks to them for participating.”

“I enjoyed hearing thoughts from the judges and other attorneys on each topic presented.”

“The program was excellent.” – Tom Freeman, Esq.

“I learned a lot about advanced appellate practice.” – John L Jones II, Esq.

“I liked hearing from the judges – it’s always interesting to hear their points of view.”

“It was great to hear direct practice advice and pointers from experienced lawyers and judges. I also thought the deposition and summary judgment sections were very helpful.”

“It’s always helpful to have judges and attorneys who have worked at an appellate court speak at programs like this as it’s helpful to have the view from the inside.”

“Excellent program.” 

“I love the format and the pace!”

“I loved it.”

“Anna-Rose Mathieson was very helpful and interesting!”

“I really enjoyed the practical sections regarding brief writing and virtual oral arguments.”

“Great program and location. The lunch itself was great, as was the opportunity to network.”

“I thoroughly enjoyed the discussion during ethics regarding plagiarism and ghost writing. I think it was the most interesting conversation all day.”

“I thought it was all great.” – Polly Estes, Esq.

“Wonderful!” – Chris Lim, Esq.

“I thought the program was excellent.” – Ellen R. Serbin, Esq.

“I was happy to have the speakers answer questions quickly, and to provide many secondary resources to look for after the webinar.”

“The program was very good.  Very thorough.” – Thomas Anthony Trapani, Esq.

“Informative, but more specific to the speakers, they are good at speaking and take into consideration the listener and things that might be annoying on a webinar.”

“It was a nice run down of key components of litigation.”

“Justice Streeter is really interesting and provides great insight and information.” – Sarah Birmingham, Esq.

“I liked the mix of appellate practitioners and judges.”

“It was great, super informative. I really appreciated all of the individual insight.”

“Mr. Colantuano and Judge Klatchko were very good and helpful.”

“It was very informative. I especially enjoyed the sections on oral argument.”

“What I appreciate the most from these trainings is the multiple perspectives from various justices and practicing attorneys.” – Cynthia Vargas, Esq.

“Really great program. Wonderful insights into thinking of judges and practitioners.”

“It’s great to have presentations targeting experienced appellate lawyers.  Tremendously useful.” – Tom Freeman, Esq.

“Recommended by colleagues. Really great program. Wonderful insights into thinking of judges and practitioners.”

“Justice Miller was delightful. Justice Grimes and John Taylor were effective. Judge Klatchko was an utterly delightful teacher.”

“Speakers were excellent.”

“Justice Streeter was great! Watt and Chamberlain were very good.”

“Really good, varied program.”

“Nice job. The program was easy to follow. I much appreciated receiving the materials in advance. I printed them out and made notes on them.”

“Organization and administration were excellent and very efficient.”

“Panelists were all terrific – one of the best MCLE classes I have taken!”

“The presentations were high quality as always.” – Brian C. Unitt, Esq.

“Program was excellent – good speakers.”

“So far it has been great! Especially getting the hard copy and handout. When it comes up in practice, I can go back and listen and read about the specific area.”

“The judges are the draw, but some advocates are really strong, too — like John Taylor, Mira Hashmall, Susan Horst, Robin Meadow.” – Michael G. Colantuono, Esq.

“Really great presenters.”

“The program was very informative. I learned something new.”

“Terrific, as always.”

“Received a lot of good, practical information and advice regarding handling of appeals and appellate issues.”

“The first program with the three justices regarding virtual oral argument was really good I thought. The last section with Justice Groban was interesting to get an insider view on how the Cal. Sup. court operates behind the scenes.”

“Simply an excellent program, good choice of topics and the speakers were great.”

“Speakers are great.”

“Speakers seemed knowledgeable, and it was organized well.”

“The nuts and bolts for arguing before the court of appeal was helpful, as I’m preparing for my first argument.”

“The program is always very valuable and insightful as appellate practitioners tend to encounter tricky, interesting, and challenging issues that are excellent topics for discussion with colleagues and peers.”

“Stephen Mayer was very engaging. Justice Chin gave invaluable insight. Very engaging.”

“Substantive and consistent with the billing.”

“Very informative with practical and useful anecdotes.”

“Terrific!”

“The “insider” information was excellent. The program was also well organized. It was informative.”

“Very informative and it was great to hear from various members of the legal community.”

“The 3-hour, remote format made it more convenient to attend.”

“Very thorough. Well done.” – Eric Troff, Esq.

“This was an excellent program. All speakers did a great job!”

“The Justice Grimes/Segal part was great.”

“Excellent panels.”

“Great discussions today on oral argument and PIs.”

“Very happy with the program.”

“Excellent as usual.”

“Excellent as always.”

“Great speakers and content.”

“Great expertise and balanced panels.”

“The discussion regarding remote versus in-person appearances for oral argument was excellent.”

“Informative.  I found the preliminary injunction section helpful.”

“Great panel today!”

“Great insights; so appreciated.”

“The program was excellent.”

“Very practical and very helpful.”

“The oral arguments by video was useful, the lighting/audio/image information was useful.”

“Timely. The substance of the final segment on forms of Supreme Court relief other than grant of review was the most interesting part of the program for me.”

“Very organized. Thank you!”

“Thought the content was very good and topical.”

“Video argument sessions were great.”

“The program was very informative, and I definitely learned something new.”

“Very high quality – appreciate the thoughtfulness of speakers.”

“Today’s program was good as well. Interesting discussions about brief-writing and statutory construction, among other things.”

“This was an excellent program. Speakers did a great job.” – Christopher Johns, Esq.

“Very good program.” – Paul Young, Esq.

“Thoughtful, informative, and helpful.”

“Very current and useful information.”

“Was an excellent presentation, especially remotely.”

“I thought it was all very helpful.”

“Truly useful with Wendy’s segment as the most valuable.” – Leslie Ellen Shear, Esq.

“Very good materials.”

“Wonderful speakers, and content was extremely relevant and helpful to my practice.”

“Very much enjoyed the program.”

“The speakers are fabulous.”

“Very informative program filled with practical and helpful information.”

“I felt that the topics and the issues were very helpful and focused. I like the trend to include federal appellate content, and I encourage this to continue.”

“Very informative. “

“All the speakers were great and provided a lot of insight on their respective presentation.”

“Wonderful appellate presentations; insightful and helpful for the daily practitioner.”

“I enjoy hearing from all the appellate justices you have and would enjoy the opportunity to hear from new ones as well.”

“It was nice to see Judges from various courts.”

“Excellent.”

“I liked the timeliness and variety of topics from knowledgeable and prepared speakers.”

“Well-organized, good speakers.”

“Excellent speakers and interesting topics.”

“Excellent panelists and content.”

“Another fabulous program.  Loved hearing from Justice Chin!”

“Very helpful and an impressive group of speakers.”

“Informative and easy to listen to.”

“Very interesting discussion on remote oral argument procedures especially. Lots of good tips.”

“Always fabulous!”

“Very interesting and informative, as always.”

“Very satisfied with the program.” – Dennis Beaty, Esq.

“All the speakers were so engaging. Content was great.”

“Very good program. I really liked all the advice the judges and attorneys gave.”

“Wonderful program.”

Faculty

Hon. Ming W. Chin (Ret.)
Retired California Supreme Court Justice
ADR Services, Inc.

The Honorable Ming W. Chin joined ADR Services, Inc. in 2021 after a highly decorated and illustrious career marked by exemplary public service, including 24 years as an Associate Justice of the California Supreme Court. He is deeply respected and admired among his peers, not only for his remarkable intellect and strength of character, but also for his great dedication and contributions to the California judiciary and to the legal community at large. As a mediator, arbitrator, referee, and appellate consultant at ADR Services, Inc., Justice Chin continues to service the business and legal communities by resolving complex and divisive matters through alternative dispute resolution.

 The Honorable Ming W. Chin was appointed to the California Supreme Court in March 1996.  Before being named to the high court, Justice Chin served from 1990 to 1996 on the First District Court of Appeal, Division Three, San Francisco.  Prior to his appointment to the Court of Appeal, Justice Chin served on the bench of the Alameda County Superior Court.  He began his legal career as a prosecutor in the Alameda County District Attorney’s office and later was a partner in an Oakland law firm specializing in business and commercial litigation.  Justice Chin earned his bachelor’s degree in political science and law degree from the University of San Francisco.  After his graduation from law school, Justice Chin served two years as a Captain in the United States Army, including a year in Vietnam, where he was awarded the Army Commendation Medal and the Bronze Star.

---

Hon. Kathleen M. Banke
Justice
California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division One

Kathleen M. Banke was appointed as an Associate Justice to the Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division One, in June 2009. Prior to being elevated to the appellate bench, Justice Banke sat on the Alameda County Superior Court, to which she was appointed in June 2006. During her last year on the superior court bench, she was one of three judges appointed to the Alameda County Superior Court’s Appellate Division and was an elected member of the Court’s Executive Committee. Justice Banke now serves, by appointment, on the Center for Judicial Education and Research’s Appellate Advisory Committee and is the chair of the Legislative and Privacy subcommittees.  She previously served on and was chair of the Appellate Practice Curriculum Committee.  She is very active in judicial education and has helped produce numerous educational videos for the appellate bench and often speaks at statewide appellate programs.  

Before being appointed to the bench, Justice Banke was a partner at Reed Smith LLP, and before that, at Crosby, Heafey, Roach & May, which merged with Reed Smith. She specialized in appellate practice for more than 20 years, was the practice group leader for the Crosby, Heafey statewide, and then the Reed Smith nationwide, Appellate Practice Group, and represented clients in the United States Supreme Court, the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and the Ninth Circuit, the California Supreme Court, and all districts of the California Court of Appeal. She was counsel of record or co-counsel on more than 200 appeals and writs, many of which resulted in published opinions. She also regularly consulted with trial lawyers to help shape trial presentations and make the best record possible for an eventual appeal. These consultations included briefing and arguing issues in the trial courts, and preparing and arguing post-trial motions. She also handled complex civil law and motion matters and writ proceedings. She was a certified specialist in appellate law by the California State Bar Board of Legal Specialization, was inducted as a fellow into the American Academy of Appellate Lawyers, and was an active member (and is now an ex officio member) of the California Academy of Appellate Lawyers.

Justice Banke has written numerous articles on civil appellate and writ practice. She is the chief consulting and updating editor and a contributing author of the significantly revised and expanded California Civil Writ Practice (CEB 4th ed. 2008), a contributing author and updating editor of Civil Procedure Before Trial: Statutes of Limitations (TRG 2016), and a contributing author to California Civil Appellate Practice (CEB 3d ed. 1996), Employment Litigation (TRG 2001), and Federal Civil Trials and Evidence (TRG 2000). Justice Banke served as a practitioner-advisor in appellate advocacy at Boalt Hall School of Law for three years, and before that as Adjunct Assistant Professor of Law at Hastings College of the Law for three years teaching civil appellate advocacy. She continues to participate as a moot court judge for local law schools and other moot court competitions. 

---

Hon. Daniel H. Bromberg
Justice
California Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District

Daniel H. Bromberg was appointed to the Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District, by Governor Gavin Newsom in January 2023. 

From 2019 to 2021, Justice Bromberg served as a Deputy Secretary for Legal Affairs in the Governor’s Office, where he supervised lawyers in the California Environmental Protection Agency, Natural Resource Agency, Department of Transportation, and Department of Food and Agriculture. During this period, Justice Bromberg also supervised litigation concerning, among other things, the border wall and COVID-19 restrictions. 

Both before and after serving in the Governor’s Office, Justice Bromberg was in private practice. He began his career as an associate at Cahill Gordon & Reindel in New York, working primarily on First Amendment matters. He subsequently moved to JonesDay in Washington, D.C., where he became a partner in the appellate practice. In 2005, he moved to California to join Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, where he helped found the appellate practice group and remained until joining the Governor’s Office. After leaving the Governor’s Office, Justice Bromberg joined Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman in San Francisco as the head of the firm’s appellate practice. 

Mr. Bromberg graduated summa cum laude with a B.A. in history from Yale University and magna cum laude with a J.D. from Harvard Law School, where he was a member of the Law Review. He clerked for the Honorable Louis F. Oberdorfer on the United States District Court for the District of Columbia Circuit and then for the Honorable A. Raymond Randolph on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. 

Justice Bromberg has taught continuing legal education classes on writing and appellate practice. In addition, in 2021 and 2022, he was a senior research fellow at the California Constitution Center at the Berkeley School of Law. During the same period he was a senior appellate practice fellow in the Center for Litigation and the Courts at UC College of the Law, San Francisco and the founding director of the California Appellate Advocacy Project. 

---

Hon. Elizabeth A. Grimes
Justice
California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Eight

Beth Grimes was confirmed as an Associate Justice of the Second District Court of Appeal, Division Eight, in April 2010.  She was appointed to the Los Angeles Superior Court in December 1997.  Justice Grimes’ first judicial assignment was to the dependency court, after which she presided over a felony calendar court and independent calendar general jurisdiction courtrooms in the Stanley Mosk Courthouse and the Santa Monica Courthouse.  From August 2004 through March 2005, Justice Grimes was assigned as a justice pro tempore to Division Four of the Second District Court of Appeal.

Before her appointment to the bench, Justice Grimes was a partner in the Litigation Department of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, engaged in a business litigation practice since joining the firm in 1980.

A Phi Beta Kappa graduate of the University of Texas at Austin, Justice Grimes received her law degree in 1980 from Stanford Law School, where she was an Associate Editor of the Stanford Law Review.  She also attended the Universidad de los Andes in Bogota, Colombia, for one semester during her senior year, and she attended Mount Holyoke College her freshman year of college.

---

Hon. Michael J. Raphael
Justice
California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two

Justice Raphael is the fourth generation of his family to live in Southern California, though he is the first lawyer or judge.  Justice Raphael graduated in 1990 from Rice University and in 1993 from Yale Law School, where he was a senior editor of the Yale Law Journal and an editor of the Yale Journal of Law & Policy.

Justice Raphael began his legal career as a law clerk for the Honorable Nathaniel R. Jones of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.  Justice Raphael then practiced as a trial and appellate litigator in the Washington D.C. office of a national law firm.

Justice Raphael next worked as an investigative counsel for the Government Reform Committee of the United States House of Representatives, handling the investigation of campaign fundraising that arose from the 1996 Presidential election.  During that time, Justice Raphael also taught writing and advocacy courses as an adjunct professor at the George Washington University School of Law.

In 1999, Justice Raphael returned to the Los Angeles area and spent over twelve years as an Assistant United States Attorney in the Central District of California, prosecuting over 60 federal felony cases in trial court.  Justice Raphael also was appointed as special counsel in the Northern District of California (San Francisco) and successfully investigated and prosecuted the illegal leak of grand jury testimony provided by Barry Bonds and other athletes in the course of a government investigation of steroids in sports.

As an AUSA, Justice Raphael served as chief of the Criminal Appeals Section from 2007 to 2012 after serving as deputy chief from 2005 to 2007.  As chief, Justice Raphael oversaw an annual appellate docket of roughly 300 briefs and 100 oral arguments in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  Justice Raphael personally argued 41 cases in Ninth Circuit on behalf of the United States, including three en banc cases presented to an 11-judge panel.  Justice Raphael co-taught Advanced Appellate Advocacy at the Gould School of Law at the University of California in 2005 and 2006; he also co-taught a seminar in criminal sentencing in 2008.  Justice Raphael lectured frequently on appellate brief writing and oral argument while an attorney.

In 2012, Justice Raphael became a Judge on the Los Angeles Superior Court upon his appointment by Governor Jerry Brown.   On that court, Justice Raphael initially handled assignments that included small claims, limited civil, unlawful detainer, and criminal misdemeanors.  He then served in the downtown civil “law and motion” courts that handled pretrial cases for the entire county in limited civil and personal injury cases.  For Justice Raphael’s last three years on the trial bench, he was assigned to a downtown civil independent calendar court, with a docket of a wide variety of civil cases.  While on the trial court, Justice Raphael was twice appointed to serve as a pro tem Justice in Division Five of the Second District Court of Appeal.

In 2018, Governor Brown nominated Justice Raphael to serve as an Associate Justice on the Court of Appeal, and he was unanimously confirmed by the Commission on Judicial Appointments, after receiving an “exceptionally well qualified” rating from the Judicial Nominees Evaluation Commission.

While on the trial and appellate bench, Justice Raphael has authored several dozen articles in legal publications, has taught several judicial education courses, and has spoken frequently at legal education events for attorneys.

---

Hon. John L. Segal
Justice
California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Seven

Justice Segal has served as an Associate Justice of the California Court of Appeal since 2015.

In 2000 Justice Segal was appointed to the Los Angeles County Superior Court, where he served as a trial judge until 2015 and presided over civil and criminal cases. His assignments on the Superior Court included 12 years in unlimited civil individual calendar courts in the Stanley Mosk, Santa Monica, and West Los Angeles courthouses. He also served as a justice pro tem in the Court of Appeal from January 2010 to June 2010, August 2012 to March 2013, and May 2013 to December 2014.

In May 2015 Justice Segal was nominated to the Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Seven. The Commission on Judicial Appointments confirmed his nomination in July 2015.

Justice Segal is actively involved in state and local bar associations. He has served on the Executive Committee of the Section of Litigation of the Los Angeles County Bar Association, the Board of Governors of the Beverly Hills Bar Association, the Board of Governors of the Los Angeles Chapter of the Association of Business Trial Lawyers, and as an advisor to the Executive Committee of the Litigation Section of the State Bar of California. He is participates in the Los Angeles County Bar Association Litigation Trial Practice Inn of Court and the Beverly Hills Bar Association Southern California Business Litigation Inn of Court.

Justice Segal was born and raised in Los Angeles. He received his Bachelor of Arts degree in Mathematics and Philosophy from Williams College in 1982, and his law degree from the University of Southern California School of Law in 1987. After law school he served as a law clerk for Judge Robert S. Vance of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit from 1987 to 1988. He was an associate from 1988 to 1995, and then a partner from 1995 to 2000, with the law firm of Mitchell, Silberberg and Knupp, where he helped run the Appellate Practice Group.

Justice Segal is married to Chief United States Magistrate Judge Suzanne H. Segal of the United States District Court for the Central District of California. They have two adult children. Justice Segal teaches Remedies at the University of Southern California School of Law, sings tenor in a congregational choir, and plays third base for his softball team.

---

Hon. Kira L. Klatchko
Judge and Certified Legal Specialist in Appellate Law
Superior Court of California, Riverside County

Judge Kira Klatchko was appointed to Riverside County Superior Court in 2016. She currently sits in Palm Springs in an unlimited civil department.

Before joining the bench, Judge Klatchko was a Civil Appellate Law Specialist, certified by the State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization and handled both state and federal appeals arising from all areas of civil practice for clients as varied as cities, businesses and families. Judge Klatchko was a partner at Lewis Brisbois, and served as was vice chair of the firm’s national Appellate Practice Litigation group. Prior to joining Lewis Brisbois, Judge Klatchko was a partner at Best Best & Krieger where she served as chair of the firm’s appellate group. She served for six years on the State Bar of California’s Standing Committee on Appellate Courts, including a term as its chair.

Judge Klatchko is co-author of the “California” chapter of the “Appellate Practice Compendium” (ABA 2012), an insider’s guide to appellate practice. She is co-contributing editor of “California Civil Appeals and Writs” (Matthew Bender 2014), a comprehensive two-volume practice guide for appellate counsel and general litigators. Judge Klatchko was repeatedly named to the list of Super Lawyers for Southern California in Appellate Law. She is a former president of the Riverside County Bar Association, and previously served five terms as chair of the Riverside County Bar Association Appellate Section. Judge Klatchko was also a member of the California Academy of Appellate Lawyers.

Judge Klatchko has served as an adjunct professor at La Verne College of Law, teaching legal research and writing. She has also lectured on appellate ethics and practice at numerous conferences and seminars, including the California State Bar Annual Convention, the State and Local Legal Center Supreme Court Practice Seminar, and Pincus Professional Education’s Annual Advanced Appellate Conferences in Los Angeles.  

In 2014, Judge Klatchko was inducted into the Desert Bar Association Hall of Fame, as Outstanding Young Attorney of the year. In 2010, Judge Klatchko was recognized by the City of Palm Springs and Palm Springs Chamber of Commerce with the Athena International Award for Young Professional Leadership, recognizing her professional success and work in the community. 

Judge Klatchko received her bachelor’s degree in political science, with distinction, from the University of California, Berkeley. She earned her master’s degree in business administration from the Executive Management Program at the Peter F. Drucker and Masatoshi Ito School of Management at Claremont Graduate University. She earned her law degree at the University of California, Davis, School of Law, where she served as editor-in-chief of the U.C. Davis Journal of Juvenile Law & Policy.

---

David M. Arbogast, Esq.

Arbogast Law

  David M. Arbogast practices law in Santa Ana and throughout California. He concentrates on appellate, complex law and motion matters involving a wide array of disciplines, including consumer protection, business torts, and access-to-justice related matters.

He sits on the amicus and legal affairs committees of the American Association for Justice (AAJ). He also is a member and active volunteer brief writer for AAJ and the amicus committee of Consumer Attorneys of California (CAOC). He is a Fellow of the Pound Civil Justice Institute, and an AAJ Champion – Masters of Trial Law, AAJ’s highest level of achievement.  

 

---

Peder K. Batalden, Esq.
Partner
Horvitz & Levy LLP

 For many institutional clients, Peder Batalden is the go-to lawyer to handle important federal appeals. In addition to taking the lead on briefing and arguing those appeals, he often works with clients before an appeal begins, advising them to preserve issues and present evidence in the best posture for appeal. And he routinely assists clients in responding to large money judgments, drawing upon a deep knowledge of federal jurisdiction and procedure to assist in staying enforcement of judgments and preparing post-trial motions so that issues for appeal are not lost.

Peder is a partner at the firm. He has successfully petitioned for review in the U.S. Supreme Court, and he has argued and won numerous appeals in the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Ninth and Tenth Circuits.

Peder has represented many significant companies, including AutoNation, Bank of America, Chevron, Ford Motor Company, Honeywell, Hospital Corporation of America, Lyft, Media News Group, The Sherwin-Williams Company, Newell Brands, Sempra Energy, TASER International, Travelers, and Toyota Motor Sales. He has also represented government entities and employees in federal civil rights actions; major medical providers in healthcare matters; and insurers in coverage actions.

Peder is co-author of the leading treatise on civil appeals before the Ninth Circuit, the Rutter Group’s Ninth Circuit Civil Appellate Practice. He is a past Chair of the State Bar of California’s Standing Committee on the Federal Courts, which works to enhance bench-bar relations and studies proposed changes to federal rules. He also routinely comments on proposed amendments to the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and to the Ninth Circuit rules.

 

---

Harry W.R. Chamberlain, Esq.
Shareholder, Certified Legal Specialist in Appellate Law
Buchalter

Harry Chamberlain is a Shareholder of Buchalter, an Am Law 150 firm, with eleven Western U.S. offices. For over 40 years, he has served as trial and appellate counsel for Fortune 500 companies, and a variety of public and private sector clients in complex litigation matters. He is certified as an Appellate Specialist by the California State Bar Board of Legal Specialization, handling hundreds of appeals across the country, including numerous cases before the California Supreme Court and the highest courts of other states.                                                           

Before joining Buchalter, Harry was general counsel for California‐based professional liability insurers, and managed the law department of a national group of commercial insurance and financial service companies. He is past president of California Defense Counsel and the Association of Southern California Defense Counsel, preeminent associations of civil defense trial and appellate lawyers. He writes and lectures widely on topics regarding complex litigation, professional responsibility and insurance law.

---

Efrat M. Cogan, Esq.
Of Counsel
Buchalter

Efrat M. Cogan is certified as an Appellate Specialist by the California State Bar of Legal Specialization. As detailed below, she has handled appeals before a variety of courts and on a wide range of subjects, including land use, real estate disputes, probate matters, sports law, commercial law, products liability and employment law.

In addition to appellate work, Ms. Cogan’s practice involves litigation in various areas, including the following:  land use disputes, real estate litigation, including construction litigation, nuisance litigation, and easement litigation.  Having previously represented both municipalities and developers, she has experience in governmental and constitutional law.  She also has experience with commercial litigation, sports law, copyright litigation and class action litigation.

Ms. Cogan has written “Executive Nonacquiescence: Problems of Statutory Interpretation and Separation of Powers,” 60 Southern California Law Review 1143, 1987. She has contributed to the California Municipal Law Handbook, published by the California League of Cities, and has co-authored “The ‘Empire’ Strikes Back: Effective Use of the False Claims Act” (2005).  She has written articles for the Business Law News relating to unfair competition claims, and health law.

Ms. Cogan has been selected by Super Lawyer Magazine as one of Southern California’s Super Lawyers from 2004-2006 and 2008-2021 and was included in “Top 50 Women in Law” of Southern California. She was also recognized by Super Lawyer Magazine as a Southern California Super Lawyer, Corporate Counsel Edition from 2009 to 2010. Ms. Cogan currently serves on the California State Bar’s Advisory Commission.

---

Michael G. Colantuono, Esq.
Partner, Certified Legal Specialist in Appellate Law
Colantuono, Highsmith & Whatley, PC

Michael G. Colantuono is a shareholder in Colantuono, Highsmith & Whatley, a municipal law firm with offices in Pasadena and Grass Valley. Chief Justice Ronald M. George presented him with the 2010 Public Lawyer of the Year award on behalf of the California State Bar Association. The Los Angeles Daily Journal named him one of “California’s Top Municipal Lawyers” every year since its list began in 2011. The Supreme Court appointed him the first Chair of the Board of Trustees of the State Bar of California; he was previously President of the Bar. The State Bar has certified him as an Appellate Specialist and he is a member of the California Academy of Appellate Lawyers, a prestigious association of fewer than 100 of California’s most distinguished appellate advocates.

Michael is one of California’s leading experts on municipal revenues and has appeared in all six Courts of Appeal in California. In addition, he has argued nine public finance cases in the California Supreme Court since 2004 and briefed two others.

Michael is City Attorney of Auburn and Grass Valley and general counsel of a number of LAFCOs and special districts and previously served six other cities and many special districts. He serves as special counsel to counties, cities and special districts around California.

Michael served as President of the City Attorneys Department of the League of California Cities in 2003–2004 and established its first Ethics Committee.

He served on the Commission on Local Governance in the 21st Century, the recommendations of which led to substantial revisions of the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act. Michael is General Counsel of the Calaveras and San Diego LAFCOs and serves as outside counsel to several other LAFCOs.

Michael graduated magna cum laude from Harvard College with a degree in Government and received his law degree from the Boalt Hall School of Law of the University of California at Berkeley.

He frequently posts comments on local government and municipal finance topics to Twitter ( @MColantuono ) and LinkedIn ( Michael Colantuono ).

---

Mira Hashmall, Esq.
Partner
Miller | Barondess LLP

Mira Hashmall is an accomplished trial lawyer with a record of success in federal and state courts, and in arbitration.  She has been honored by the Daily Journal on its lists of Top 100 Lawyers in California, Top Women Lawyers, Top 40 Under 40, and Top Labor and Employment Lawyers.  Los Angeles Business Journal has recognized Mira on its lists of Top Litigators, Minority Leaders of Influence, Leaders in Law, Women’s Council & Awards, and Most Influential Women Lawyers.  Mira was honored by the Century City Bar Association as Employment Lawyer of the Year 2021.

Mira began her practice at a large, international law firm representing clients in complex litigation matters and defending employers in labor and employment disputes.  Since joining Miller Barondess, Mira has continued to diversify her practice and has achieved Top Verdict recognition on both the plaintiff and defense side.  She represents clients at every stage of litigation, from pre-litigation counseling to appellate proceedings, and is sought out to handle complex litigation involving business matters that have a broad legal impact.

In addition to her complex business practice, Mira defends private and public employers in high stakes litigation involving claims of harassment, discrimination, retaliation, wage and hour, and wrongful termination.  She also defends cases involving disability discrimination and accommodation, and family and medical leave rights.

Mira has a sophisticated appellate practice and is a Certified Specialist in Appellate Law, The State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization.  Her federal appellate experience includes First Amendment, defamation and libel claims, insurance coverage issues, and employment disputes.  She has handled appeals involving real estate developments, contract disputes, whistle-blower actions, and malicious prosecution claims.  Mira also has extensive experience in anti-SLAPP litigation, both at the trial and appellate levels.

Mira is admitted to practice before all U.S. District Courts in California.  She received her B.A. in Political Science from the University of California, Berkeley, and her J.D. from the University of Southern California Gould School of Law.

---

Susan Horst, Esq.
Counsel
Complex Appellate Litigation Group, LLP

Susan Horst is a specialist in writs of mandamus and prohibition in the California appellate courts. For more than 31 years, Susan served as the writ attorney for the California Court of Appeal for the First District, Division One, in San Francisco. Susan is one of the only practicing attorneys in California to have devoted virtually her entire career to appellate writs. As writ attorney in the First District, Susan evaluated thousands of pre- and post- trial writ petitions in all types of civil and criminal matters. In the process, she learned precisely what the justices on the Court of Appeal look for before taking the extraordinary step of granting writ relief — and what an opposing party needs to highlight to have the best shot at getting a petition denied.

Susan’s three decades at the Court of Appeal gave her both extensive writing experience and a wide-ranging knowledge of substantive law. Susan’s casework ran the gamut from business and commercial litigation, to personal injury and employment matters, to real estate, insurance, and products liability cases, to professional negligence, disqualification, and privilege issues. The procedural postures of the writ petitions she handled were equally wide-ranging, and included pleading defects and class certification, sealing of court records, discovery disputes, summary judgment, settlement, and enforcement of judgments.

Her practice today focuses on writ petition consulting in the appellate courts and trial court work in anticipation of writ relief. Susan also lectures widely on writ practice and procedure. She has presented seminars to the San Francisco City Attorney, District Attorney and Public Defender Offices, the State Bar of California, California Continuing Education of the Bar, The Rutter Group, PINCUS Professional Education, bar associations across California, and the Center for Judicial Education and Research. She is the co-author of Chapters for Continuing Education of the Bar publications, as well as training materials for numerous continuing education lectures.

Susan’s career at the Court of Appeal followed motion and jury trial skills she developed early on as an Assistant District Attorney in San Francisco. She holds her J.D. from the Santa Clara University School of Law, where she graduated summa cum laude — even though she attended law school part-time at night, while working as a full-time administrator at Stanford University during the day. She also has her B.A. in English from Stanford.

In her spare time ,she also volunteers on the Advisory Board of Advokids, a foster children’s advocacy group, and provides pro bono advice and representation through the Advokids Appellate Project.

---

Kent L. Richland, Esq.
Founding Partner
Greines, Martin, Stein & Richland LLP

Kent Richland has been an appellate lawyer since he graduated from UCLA Law School in 1971.   In 1983, Kent was one of the founding partners of Greines, Martin, Stein & Richland, LLP.

Kent has been lead appellate counsel in hundreds of appeals.  He has argued in state and federal appellate courts across the country, including many high-profile cases in both the California Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court.  He gained national prominence in 2006 for his United States Supreme Court argument in Marshall v. Marshall, in which he successfully represented the late Anna Nicole Smith.

Kent is a frequent lecturer and author on appellate law topics and is co-author, with Presiding Justice J. Anthony Kline of the California Court of Appeal, of West’s California Litigation Forms B Civil Appeals and Writs.  He has served as president of the California Academy of Appellate Lawyers and multiple terms as president of the California Supreme Court Historical Society.  He was selected as a Fellow of the American Academy of Appellate Lawyers, the American Bar Foundation and the Litigation Counsel of America.

Among the honors he has received are the California Lawyer Magazine’s California Lawyer of the Year award in both 2007 and 2010, Best Lawyers’ Los Angeles Appellate Lawyer of the Year Award in 2015, multiple years’ recognition by the Los Angeles Daily Journal as one of the top 100 lawyers in California, multiple years’ recognition as one of the top 100 Southern California Superlawyers and recognition by Chambers USA as one of five “Band One” appellate lawyers in California.

---

Benjamin G. Shatz, Esq.
Partner, Certified Legal Specialist in Appellate Law
Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP

Ben Shatz is a certified specialist in appellate law who has briefed hundreds of civil appeals, writs and petitions in state and federal courts covering areas of law including employment, entertainment, copyright, trademark, land use, banking, insurance, product liability, professional liability, wrongful death, punitive damages, class actions, anti-SLAPP and unfair competition. Before private practice he served as law clerk to Robert J. Johnston, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Nevada, and as extern to Dorothy W. Nelson, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Ben is Editor-in-Chief of California Litigation, the journal of the State Bar’s Litigation Section, chairs the Los Angeles County Bar Association’s State Appellate Judicial Evaluations Committee and serves on the executive committee of LACBA’s Appellate Courts Section. He is a past Chair of the State Bar Committee on Appellate Courts and the LACBA Appellate Courts Committee.

Since 2005, Ben has coordinated lawyer volunteers for the ACE (Appellate Court Experience) program, in which high school students visit the Second District Court of Appeal, for which he was honored as Lawyer of the Year (Private Sector 2008) by the Constitutional Rights Foundation. He has been named a Southern California Super Lawyer in Appellate Practice (2004-2015); listed in Best Lawyers in America for appellate practice (2012-2015); and is AV-Preeminent rated by Martindale-Hubbell.

Ben is a frequent lecturer and publisher of articles on appellate practice, is an editorial consultant for the Matthew Bender Practice Guide on California Civil Appeals & Writs, and blogs at Southern California Appellate News (http://socal-appellate.blogspot.com).

---

Gary A. Watt, Esq.
Partner
Hanson Bridgett

Gary serves as Chair of the firm’s Appellate Practice. He is a State Bar approved Certified Appellate Specialist, handling writs and appeals in all of the California appellate courts, including the California Supreme Court and the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. His practice also includes dispositive motions such as SLAPP, summary judgment, and post-trial motions. His appellate experience gives him unique insights into complex cases and esoteric disputes. He excels at issue spotting and arrives at thoughtful solutions to business problems. His practice includes risk management such as interpreting contracts, indemnity provisions, and more.

A passionate appellate lawyer and law professor, Gary has been on the faculty at U.C. Hastings College of the Law since 2001 teaching various appellate law courses and coaching intercollegiate moot court competition teams. Consistent with Hanson Bridgett’s commitment to pro bono work, Gary currently serves as Director of U.C. Hastings’ Ninth Circuit clinical program: the Hastings Appellate Project. As Director, he supervises law students in the pro bono legal representation of appellants. He is also a frequent lecturer at MCLE presentations throughout the Bay Area, and has taught hundreds of lawyers over the years on a vast array of appellate and litigation best practices.

Gary is also Chair of the Contra Costa County Bar Association’s appellate practice section. A prolific writer, Gary is a frequent contributor to the Daily Journal, The Recorder, and other legal publications, with over 75 published articles to date. 

---

Fees

Seminar Materials are included with OnDemand and all recorded package options.

OnDemand Streaming!  On-Demand Streaming allows for a single person to view the seminar unlimited times until one year after the seminar is held.

Recorded Packages!  Recorded Packages allow for a single person to download and view the program recording and are also available via DVD or CD.

Discounted rates are available for 2-4 attorneys at your firm.  Licenses are available for law firms or agencies that would like to distribute the video package or OnDemand Streaming access to more than four attorneys at their firm or agency.

Fees:

OnDemand Streaming:  $429

Recorded Packages via Download or CD/DVDs:

Video Recording – DVD or Download: $429

Audio Only (for in your car, etc.) Recording – CD or Download:  $429

Order both the Video and Audio Only Packages for only $50 more – Download, DVD or CD: $479

$8.50 shipping and sales tax (in California) are added at checkout to DVD/CD orders.

Your OnDemand access is good for up to one-year from the time of purchase.  Please be sure to select OnDemand Streaming to the right and check out. OnDemand can be watched from any type of device.

*The Video recording is a video of the webinar (with sound). The Audio Only recordings are audio files only and are for those who wish to listen to it without watching a video (such as in the car or while walking).

Note: OnDemand Streaming can be watched from any device. However, all download packages must be downloaded to a computer first, before transferring them to another device due to downloading as zip files containing both the video/audio and a large folder with seminar materials contained in the download package.

CLE Credit

CA General:  This program is approved for 6.5 units of general CLE in California.

CA Ethics: This program is approved for .75 in Ethics Credit in CA.

CA Participatory Certified Legal Specialist: This program is approved for 6.5 hours of Legal Specialization Credit in Appellate Law. (Expires 02/07/2025)

CA Self Study (only) Certified Legal Specialist: This program is approved for 6.5 hours of Legal Specialization Credit in Appellate Law. (Expires 02/07/2028)

NY General: This course is eligible for approval, under New York’s CLE Approved Jurisdiction policy, for up to 6.5 CLE units. Pincus Professional Education is a CA Accredited Provider, which is a NY approved jurisdiction. See Section 6 of the New York State CLE Board Regulations and Guidelines for further information.

This program is approved for CLE in the states listed above.  Upon request, Pincus Pro Ed will provide any information an attorney needs to support their application for CLE approval in other states other than what is listed above. Many attorneys ask for this and are approved in other states.