7th Annual Advanced Appellate Practice (CA) (Recorded Package)

What You Will Learn

Part 1 Topics

Appealable Orders: The Collateral Order Doctrine & One Final Judgment Exceptions Examined

• The Collateral Order Doctrine
  • Elements
  • Doctrinal Dissonance
  • Majority View
  • Minority View
  • Collateral Order Examples
• The One Final Judgment Rule Exceptions
  • Orders Final as to a Party in Multiparty Actions
  • Finality as to a Party Capacity
  • Further Examples

More on Writs: Decision Options and Related Issues

• Writs of discovery rulings
• Writs and appeals of good-faith settlement determinations
• What to do if you’re not sure about appealability
• The toolbox of dispositions available to the DCA and what goes into deciding which to use
• At what point does the trial court lose jurisdiction while a petition is considered by the DCA — even if the DCA has issued some orders?
• What orders/dispositions by the DCA are law of the case?
• When are the various DCA orders final?

What Can the Supreme Court of CA do for You Other than Grant Review?

• Alternative paths to CA Supreme Court review
  • Review
  • Grant and hold
  • Original writs
  • Transfers to the CA Supreme Court on petition or sua sponte
• Supervision of the DCAs
  • Grant and remand
  • Grant and transfer
• De-publication and sua sponte review
• Dismissal of review as improvidently granted
• Judicial Notice and new evidence on appeal
• Case management issues
• Extraordinary Writs

Advanced Topics in Standards of Review

• Are the standards of review really neutral?
  • Neutrally applied principles
• Tips on arguing that a favorable standard be applied

Part 2 Topics

Preclusion

• What is preclusion?
• Claim preclusion (res judicata) vs. issue preclusion (collateral estoppel)
• Same-party requirement (privity)
• What makes a prior decision “final”?
• When is an issue “identical.”
• When is an issue “actually litigated” and “necessarily decided.”
• What equitable considerations affect issue preclusion?
• Special situations
  • Error in prior decision
  • Issue in prior case decided by trial court but not addressed by appellate court
  • Settlement before appellate resolution in prior case

Dealing with Difficult Oral Arguments and Pandemic Lessons

• How to argue when the precedent is against you
• Exceptions or justifications for not following supreme court precedent
• How to oppose a petition for review when the petitioner has a split of authority favoring review
• How to best use unpublished or non-precedential authorities
• Pandemic silver lining:
  • What the justices have learned about remote OA and about tentative opinions.
  • What attorneys have learned about remote OA and how those lessons can improve in-person arguments when they return.
• The Divided Panel: What to do when oral argument begins and you realize there’s a divided panel.
• Top 5 awkward moments during OA and ideas for handling them
• How moot courts can improve oral argument
  • Putting together an effective moot court
  • Moot court resources available in the legal community

Party Counsel and Amici Curiae Ethics

• Amicus brief funding
• Coordination with amicus counsel
• Simultaneous representation of a party and amicus curiae
• State and federal court disclosure requirements

Behind the Scenes at the 9th Circuit

• Recent rule changes
• Latest court statistics
• The court’s screening panel process
• The court’s motions panel process
• Internal processes for court mediations
• How clerks evaluate cases in chambers
• Most common electronic filing errors
• Handling sealed filings
• En banc proceedings from the inside

 

Recorded/Recording on February 15 & 17, 2022

Testimonials

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

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

“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.

“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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Great stuff.” – Abram Genser, 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.

“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.

“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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“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.

“Wonderful!” – Chris Lim, Esq.

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

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

“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.

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

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

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

“Great program.” – Sara Birmingham, Esq.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Great stuff.” – Abram Genser, Esq.

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

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

“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.

“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.

“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.

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

“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

“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.

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

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

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

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

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

“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.

“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.

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

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

“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.

“Great stuff.” – Abram Genser, Esq.

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

“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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Excellent.” – Ryan Artola, Esq.

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

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

“Useful insights from an insider in the 9^th 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.

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

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

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

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

“Such useful information (on the 9^th 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.

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

“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.

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

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

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

“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.

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

“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.

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

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

“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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“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.

“Wonderful!” – Chris Lim, Esq.

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

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

“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.

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

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

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

“Great program.” – Sara Birmingham, Esq.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“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.

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

“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.

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

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

“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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“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.

“Wonderful!” – Chris Lim, Esq.

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

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

“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.

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

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

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

“Great program.” – Sara Birmingham, Esq.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“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.”

“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.”

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

“Great to hear all sides- defense, plaintiff’s and judges. This was VERY helpful!”

“It was very interesting and informative.”

“Speakers are great.”

“The program is great and incredibly informative.”

“Excellent. A++.”

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

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

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

“Learned a lot and will definitely recommend.”

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

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

“Good solid program.”

“I got basic information, but I also got very specific advice, which I really liked.”

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

“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.”

 

 

 

“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.”

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

“Highly professional and substantive presentation.”

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

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

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

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

“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.”

“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.”

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

“The presentations were high quality as always.”

“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.”

“Good choice of topics.”

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

“The ‘insider’ information was excellent. The program was also well organized.”

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

“The program was very good.  Very thorough.”

“I thought the program was excellent.”

“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.”

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

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

“The content at this program was very useful.”

“Excellent and comprehensive, as usual.”

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

“Substantive and consistent with the billing.”

“Very interesting and informative, as always.”

“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.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Very useful information and insights, including what happens inside appellate courts, from the BEST, most knowledgeable sources.”

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

“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.”

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

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

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

“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.”

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

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

“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.”

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

“Speakers were excellent.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“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.”

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

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

“I liked the program and was able to listen in on the phone.”

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

“Terrific, as always.”

“Very informative. “

“Excellent program. Very practical stuff.”

“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!”

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

“Good content. PowerPoints were helpful.”

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

“The panelists were all good.”

“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.”

“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.”

“The speakers are fabulous.”

“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.”

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

“Excellent as usual. The insights from Justices and expert practitioners are so valuable.”

“Very much enjoyed the program.”

“Excellent program and great speakers.”

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

“Wonderful program.”

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

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

“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.”

“I liked the program and was able to listen in on the phone.”

“Video argument sessions were great.”

“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. The location was great. Their staff was quick and efficient. It was a 0.6 walk from Union Station, which made it easy to get there by Metrolink and avoid traffic.”

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

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

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

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

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

“Terrific!”

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

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

“Appreciated the practical and timely remote appearance advice.”

“Thoughtful, informative, and helpful.”

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

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

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

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

“Excellent and different than “the usual”.”

“The program was excellent.”

“Great insights; so appreciated.”

“Was an excellent presentation, especially remotely.”

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

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

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

“Excellent and well put together seminar.”

“Great mix of topics!”

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

“Good refresher.”

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

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

“Very informative with practical and useful anecdotes.”

“I learned a lot about advanced appellate practice.”

“Great mix of topics!”

“The Justice Grimes/Segal part was great.”

“I thought it was all very helpful.”

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

“Excellent Speakers and program content.”

“Thought the content was very good and topical.”

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

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

“Very practical and very helpful.”

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

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

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

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

“Program was excellent – good speakers.”

“Very informative.”

“Excellent!”

“Very interesting and informative, as always.”

“Good and thorough program.”

“I loved it.”

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

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

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

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

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

“Really great presenters.”

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

“Another great program – you never disappoint.”

“Very good materials.”

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

“Excellent program!”

“Always fabulous!”

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

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

“Very current and useful information.”

“Organization and administration were excellent and very efficient.”

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

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

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

“Excellent presentations.”

“Really good, varied program.”

“I love the format and the pace!”

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

“Very organized. Thank you!”

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

“Good, vigorous discussion.”

“Great seminar.”

“I am coming back!”

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

“The program provided useful information.”

“Great content, very informative.”

Faculty

---

Hon. Carlos T. Bea
Senior Circuit Judge
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

Carlos T. Bea is a federal judge on senior status on the United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. He joined the court in 2003 after being nominated by President George W. Bush. He assumed senior status on December 12, 2019.

Judge Bea received his Bachelor’s Degree from Stanford University in 1956 and his J.D. from Stanford Law School in 1958. Judge Bea was born in San Sebastian, Spain, and immigrated with his family to Cuba in 1939. In 1952, he represented Cuba on the Cuban National basketball team in the Helsinki Olympics. Judge Bea became a naturalized citizen of the United States in 1958. He engaged in private practice in San Francisco, principally in the area of civil trials (jury and non-jury), from 1959-75 at Dunne, Phelps & Mills and from 1975-90 at Carlos Bea, A Law Corporation. He taught courses in civil litigation advocacy at Hastings College of Law and Stanford Law School. From 1990 to 2003, Judge Bea served as a judge of the San Francisco Superior Court. He was nominated by President George W. Bush to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and was confirmed in 2003.

---

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. 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.

---

---

---

Harry W.R. Chamberlain II, 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.

---

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 ).

---

Pablo Drobny, Esq.
Counsel
Complex Appellate Litigation Group, LLP

Pablo Drobny served as a lead appellate research and writs attorney for more than 36 years. Assigned to Division Seven of the California Court of Appeal’s Second District, Pablo analyzed thousands of appeals and writ petitions, in every conceivable area of law and at every stage of civil and criminal litigation.

He personally played a pivotal role in the development of writ practice in California appellate courts. Alone responsible for handling all writ petitions assigned to Division Seven for much of his career, Pablo gained a deep understanding of extraordinary writ relief and innovated creative procedural devices to streamline writ procedures in California appellate courts. One of those devices is now commonly known as the “suggestive Palma” practice, which was approved by the California Supreme Court and is currently utilized statewide as a method of granting expeditious writ relief to litigants. Pablo also routinely advised justices about complex appellate motions and orders, including motions to dismiss appeals, view sealed transcripts, take judicial notice, augment the appellate record, and file amicus briefs.

Pablo is also heavily involved in judicial education, and taught many California appellate justices the approaches they still use to decide cases. He has served on dozens of planning committees for the courts’ annual Judicial Attorney Institutes, chaired the statewide Appellate Judicial Attorneys Education Committee, developed broadcasts for judicial attorneys and non-attorney staff with the Center for Judiciary Education and Research, and regularly gave educational presentations to Supreme Court and Court of Appeal justices and their staff. Pablo is a frequent lecturer and panelist on the writ process and on other facets of civil and criminal appellate law and procedure. His presentations include programs at annual meetings of the California State Bar, the California Judges Association, the California Public Defenders Association, the Lawyers’ Club of Los Angeles, The Rutter Group, Pincus Professional Education, and other bar associations and Inns of Court statewide. He has been guest lecturer at Loyola Law School and annual lecturer for the law school extern program at the Second District.

Pablo received his J.D. with honors from Harvard Law School. Before commencing his career at the Court of Appeal, he practiced with Perkins Coie LLP and as corporate counsel for U.S. companies doing business in developing countries. He earned his B.A. with highest honors from Johns Hopkins University, where he captained the soccer team, was selected as an All-American, and was later admitted to the Johns Hopkins Athletic Hall of Fame. He also received an NCAA postgraduate scholarship, awarded to just 22 scholar-athletes nationwide.

---

Ben Feuer, Esq.
Chairman
Complex Appellate Litigation Group, LLP

 Ben Feuer is the chairman of the California Appellate Law Group. Deemed one of the “top appellate litigators in California” by a national news network, Ben regularly represents large and small businesses, individuals, and associations in the California appellate courts, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and the U.S. Supreme Court. He leads and consults on high-stakes appeals and writs, including bet-the-company commercial disputes, multimillion-dollar tort actions, major real estate controversies, high-net worth family law litigation, and novel constitutional law challenges.

The National Law Journal called Ben an “Elite Boutique Trailblazer,” the Daily Journal named him one of the “Top 40 Lawyers Under 40” in California, Benchmark Litigation twice included him on its “40 & Under Hot List,” and the Bar Association of San Francisco awarded him its “Outstanding Barrister” prize. Super Lawyers has listed him every year for more than a decade.

Ben co-chaired the Appellate Section of the Bar Association of San Francisco from 2017-2020, and continues to serve on the section’s executive committee. He has organized, moderated, and spoken on more than fifty legal education panels with appellate judges, practitioners, and professors on topics related to appellate practice and constitutional theory.

Ben also authors articles on appellate and constitutional law topics. His writing appears in the Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, and San Francisco Chronicle, as well as the National Law Journal, Daily Journal, Recorder, and Corporate Counsel. He is also a regular guest on KALW Public Radio, KGO Talk Radio, and Voice of America broadcasts to discuss upcoming appellate issues and Supreme Court cases. You can read most of Ben’s newspaper articles and listen to podcasts of many of his radio programs by clicking here.

Ben previously served as an Appellate Lawyer Representative to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, one of a handful of attorneys from across the court’s 11-state jurisdiction personally selected for the role by the court’s judges. He is currently a member of the Advisory Board to the Ninth Judicial Circuit Historical Society. Ben also served on the Board of Directors of the Bar Association of San Francisco’s Barristers Club and on the advisory board to OneJustice, an organization that supports California legal nonprofit groups. In 2016, the Minority Bar Council of San Francisco presented Ben with its “Unity Award,” for “outstanding commitment to diversity in the legal profession.”

Before joining the California Appellate Law Group, Ben served as a law clerk to Judge Carlos Bea of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. He also served as of counsel to the San Francisco appellate boutique Eisenberg & Hancock, and practiced with noted litigators at the national firms Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan and Williams & Connolly.

Ben graduated in the top of his class from the Northwestern University School of Law in Chicago, where he was an editor of the Law Review, argued for the national moot court team, and published an article in the Northwestern Law Review on free speech and election law. He has a bachelor’s degree in philosophy from Trinity College in Connecticut.

 

---

Susan V. Gelmis, Esq.
Chief Deputy Clerk, Operations
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

Susan Gelmis is the Chief Deputy Clerk for Operations at the Ninth Circuit. 

She has been with the court for over 30 years, previously serving as supervisor of the Motions and Pro Se Units in the Staff Attorneys’ Office and as director of the Circuit’s Pro Bono Program for 22 years.

Susan has served on numerous Circuit wide committees and task forces relating to prisoner and pro se litigation, and as liaison to the pro se law clerks in the district courts, organizing and speaking at Circuit wide and national conferences.

Since 2015, Susan has served as Chief Deputy Clerk, overseeing all docketing and filing and calendaring systems and procedures, staffing the Circuit Advisory Rules Committee and Appellate Lawyer Representatives, and organizing and speaking at CLE programs around the Circuit. Susan is a 1987 graduate of NYU Law School and originally a native of New York.

---

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, Susan is an adviser to the Executive Committee of the Litigation Section of the California Lawyer’s Association.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.

---

Robin Meadow, Esq.
Partner/Certified Appellate Specialist
Greines, Martin, Stein & Richland LLP

Few appellate specialists have successfully tried a jury case.  Robin Meadow tried jury cases for over 20 years at a major commercial firm, while also handling appeals, in many fields of law.  Over time, he realized that it’s nearly impossible to excel at both trials and appeals, because the skill sets and practice rhythms differ completely and often clash. Concluding that his greatest strengths lay in appellate work, Robin joined GMSR in 1994, handling his last trial late that year.

Robin’s trial-court experience gives him a unique perspective on appellate work.  He understands the demands and pressures trial lawyers face and the many ways that things can go wrong in the trial court.  And he is very much at home consulting with trial lawyers during trial, helping them protect their appellate record so they’re well positioned to either preserve a victory or overturn a defeat.

Robin’s practice at GMSR continues the substantive focus he developed in his earlier years—business disputes, real estate, partnerships, and probate and entertainment law.  But, like most appellate lawyers, he is a generalist and at GMSR has also handled multiple significant appeals involving healthcare, family law, personal injury and bankruptcy.

He is also an expert in technology for appellate lawyers and courts.  A pioneer in the use of electronic records and briefs, Robin co-authored the California Second District Court of Appeal’s first protocol for electronic briefs (since adopted by other California Courts of Appeal), and he filed the first electronic brief ever accepted by a California appellate court.

When he isn’t practicing law, he enjoys spending time with his family, reading about history and playing bass guitar in a rock band.

---

Julian W. Park, Esq.

Kaiser Permanente

Julian W. Park is is now with Kaiser Permanente.  She was previously senior counsel in the San Francisco office of Horvitz and Levy. Julian is an experienced trial and appellate advocate and is an innovative problem-solver who focuses on her clients’ endgame goals from the outset of a case to obtain optimal results. Julian has represented Fortune 100 companies, including financial institutions, technology companies, multinational corporations, and healthcare and medical device companies, along with venture capital firms, emerging companies, and their executives. Julian has crafted hundreds of briefs and appeared before both state and federal courts across the country.

Before joining the firm, Julian practiced at several elite firms as a principal and senior litigation associate, including Latham & Watkins LLP. Julian also has extensive teaching and research experience, including as a lecturer of international civil litigation and senior research fellow at Berkeley Law School. Earlier in her career, she clerked for the Honorable Milan D. Smith, Jr. of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and for the Honorable Cormac J. Carney of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

Julian earned her law degree from Berkeley Law School, where she was a member of the California Law Review. She obtained a Bachelor of Arts, with distinction and honors, and a Master of Arts from Stanford University. Before law school, she earned a doctorate degree in English Language & Literature from Yale University, where she was an editor of the Yale Journal of Law & the Humanities, and worked as a teaching fellow for the English Department and writing fellow for the McDougal Graduate Center.

 

---

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).

---

John A. Taylor, Jr., Esq.
Partner, Certified Legal Specialist in Appellate Law
Horvitz & Levy LLP

John Taylor is a partner at Horvitz & Levy, where he has been practicing since 1993.  He is a California State Bar Certified Appellate Specialist.

Mr. Taylor has been lead appellate counsel in dozens of appeals in a wide variety of areas (his name currently appears on over 40 published opinions and many more unpublished opinions), including matters involving entertainment law, the right of publicity, the Unfair Competition Law (UCL), breach of contract, insurance coverage, wage and hour law, employment discrimination, personal injury, California’s “lemon law,” arbitration awards, and trusts and estates.

In 2012, Mr. Taylor was lead counsel in Don Johnson Productions, Inc. v. Rysher Entertainment, obtaining a million reduction of a million judgment against his client.  Mr. Taylor has also participated in numerous cases before the California Supreme Court, and in 2009 was lead counsel in obtaining a closely watched decision overturning a million judgment against a coffee manufacturer for the unauthorized use of the plaintiff’s photograph on the label of its coffee jar. In addition, he has authored amicus curiae briefs in the California Supreme Court on issues such as evidentiary requirements in product liability and wage and hour litigation; the scope and application of Proposition 64’s amendments to the UCL; public policy issues arising out of subcontractor indemnity provisions in residential construction contracts; the constitutionality of Proposition 5, the Indian gaming initiative; and the validity of the Seaman’s tort. 

Mr. Taylor is a member of the California Academy of Appellate Lawyers and the Los Angeles County Bar Appellate Courts Section. In 2007, Mr. Taylor was appointed by Chief Justice Ronald George to serve on the Judicial Council Appellate Advisory Committee of California, as one of the three private civil attorneys on the committee, and in 2010 was reappointed to a second term.

In 2009, Mr. Taylor was named to the Top 100 list of leading lawyers in California by the Los Angeles & San Francisco Daily Journal. He is “AV Preeminent” rated by Martindale Hubbell, has been listed every year since 2006 as a Super Lawyer and as a “Best Lawyer” by The Best Lawyers in America, and was included among the overall Top 100 Southern California lawyers for 2011 by Super Lawyers magazine. In 1994, Mr. Taylor was honored as the “Outstanding Young Lawyer” of the year by the Los Angeles Chapter of the J. Reuben Clark Law Society.

Mr. Taylor received his Bachelor of Arts from Brigham Young University (summa cum laude) and his Juris Doctor from Harvard Law School (magna cum laude). Following law school, he held a judicial clerkship with the Hon. Patrick E. Higginbotham, U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. Before joining the firm, Mr. Taylor was a litigation associate with Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP. He is admitted to practice in the California and Utah state courts, the United States Supreme Court, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

---

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

Three Recorded Package options to choose from:

Video (with sound)* Recording & Materials Package – CD or Download:  $425

Audio Only* Recording & Materials Package – CD or Download:  $425

Order both the Video* and Audio Only* Packages for only $50 more – CD or Download:  $475

*The Video recording is a video of the webinar (with sound). The Audio recording is audio only, for those who wish to listen to it without visuals (such as in the car).

Note: All downloads must be downloaded to a computer first, before transferring them to another device.

For CDs, please add $8.50 shipping and, in CA, sales tax.

This program will be recorded live on February 15 & 17, 2022.

(Recorded packages are available approximately two to three weeks after the seminar is held.)

CLE Credit

This program is available for both Self-Study and General Participatory CLE.*

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

CA Participatory Certified Legal Specialist:  This program is approved for 6.5 units of Certified Legal Specialist CLE in California in Appellate Law. (Expires 02/15/2024)

CA Self Study (only) Certified Legal Specialist:  This program is approved for 6.5 units of Certified Legal Specialist CLE in California in Appellate Law. (Expires 02/15/2027)

CA Ethics Credit: 0.75 units

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.

*General Participatory CLE:  For those states that make a distinction between self-study and Participatory CLE (CA, IL, NY), please write down the Verification Codes read out during the program by speakers or our announcer and email them to us at info@pincusproed.com and we will issue your Participatory CLE certificate.

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.