Read on for important information about FDAP’s 2026 annual seminar, upcoming trainings, AI resources, oral argument procedures, and panel victories.
Save the date for FDAP’s 2026 Annual Seminar!
Mark your calendars for FDAP’s 2026 annual seminar.
When: Friday, October 23, 2026
Where: California Endowment’s conference center in downtown Oakland. We are looking forward to seeing you all in person for a day of criminal and dependency breakout sessions, a keynote speaker, lunch, and the opportunity to connect with your colleagues. Approximately 5 hours of MCLE credit, including appellate and criminal specialization, will be provided.
New Court of Appeal Resource on AI
The Judicial Council recently added a resource page for self-represented litigants considering using AI in their court cases. It is a helpful reminder for attorneys and non-attorney parties about the limitations of AI and appropriate use of AI in litigation.
Reminder: Procedures for Requesting Oral Argument
First District Local Rules 13 and 15 explain how to request oral argument and ensure the argument remains on calendar after a party has made the initial request.
Of particular note is the procedure for keeping an argument on calendar when a tentative opinion issues. If a tentative opinion issues, counsel must notify the court and opposing counsel that they still wish to proceed with oral argument. If counsel does not so notify the court, the argument will be taken off calendar.
Also, if a party did not originally request oral argument, that party may not request argument after a tentative opinion issues. The initial request for argument serves both to ensure argument is scheduled and to determine which party has the right to request that the argument stay on calendar if a tentative opinion issues. This means that appellate counsel must initially request argument even if respondent’s counsel also requests argument.
The FDAP consulting staff attorney is available to discuss whether to waive or request oral argument in any case. Such consultations are expected in all assisted cases with issues raised.
Upcoming Trainings
Appointed Appeals Essentials (CAP-LA)
December 9, 2025, 10:00 a.m. – 2:45 p.m. | Remote
This training covers the basics of appointed appellate practice from appointment to case closure. Designed for new panel attorneys or those wanting a refresher, it focuses on practical skills, common challenges, and strategies for producing clear, persuasive briefs. Panel attorneys from all of the appellate projects are welcome and encouraged to attend. Topics include Pre-briefing Responsibilities, Issue Spotting, Overview of Sentencing, Brief Writing, and After the Opinion & Closing Out the Case. 4.25 hours of MCLE credit are offered.
New Legislation Webinar 2025 (FDAP) – NOTE DATE CHANGE
January 8, 2026, 12:00 p.m. – TBD | Remote
As 2025 draws to a close, a host of new legislation relevant to our work and the people we serve will be enacted into law. Please join FDAP Staff Attorneys Kaiya Pirolo and Liv Gee for an overview of new criminal, juvenile delinquency, and civil commitment laws. This webinar is eligible for MCLE credit, including appellate and criminal specialization credit. The length of the webinar is yet to be determined, depending on the number and complexity of new laws enacted this year.
Appellate Practice Selected Topics (CAP-LA)
January 20, 2026 | Remote & In-person
Join CAP-LA for a full day seminar on zoom or in-person at the DTLA California Endowment’s conference center. Topics and registration information will be announced closer to the date. Approximately 5 hours of MCLE will be offered.
Panel Victories
Below are a couple noteworthy First District victories from this past month. There were other victories that could not be included. Please visit the FDAP website for a complete list of panel victories.
A172141 – [Unpublished Opinion | Asya Ovsepyan]
The Court of Appeal vacated appellant’s electronic search condition as unreasonable under Lent/Ricardo P. The trial court had imposed the condition because appellant had not acted alone in the underlying crime, and most modern communication is by phone. The Court of Appeal found the stated justification for the condition too general and speculative and remanded for re-consideration of the condition.
A170038 – [Unpublished Opinion | Steven Schorr]
The Court of Appeal reduced one of appellant’s convictions and remanded for resentencing. A jury convicted appellant of several sexual offenses involving minors. As to one count, the court found that the evidence was insufficient to show force, duress, or fear as required under former PC 288a(c)(2)(C) (now PC 287(c)(2)(C)), notwithstanding that appellant’s actions were “inherently coercive.” The Court of Appeal agreed with the parties that the appropriate remedy was to reduce the conviction to the lesser included offense (former PC 288a(b)(1)).