Read on for important information about FDAP’s annual seminar, reviewing exhibits in San Mateo cases, state bar A.I. guidance, FDAP staff changes, upcoming trainings, and panel victories.
Save the date for FDAP’s Annual Seminar!
The seminar will be held in person on October 23, 2026 at the California Endowment’s conference center in downtown Oakland close to the 19th Street Bart station. We look forward to seeing you for a day of criminal and dependency breakout sessions, lunch, and the opportunity to connect with your colleagues. Approximately 5.0 hours of MCLE credit, including appellate and criminal specialization, will be provided. More details and registration coming soon.
Reviewing Exhibits in San Mateo Cases Made Easier
The San Mateo County Superior Court has, at FDAP’s request, issued a new standing order regarding exhibits in criminal cases. Standing Order 26-188 allows appointed counsel to access exhibits upon showing the clerk a copy of the Court of Appeal appointment order:
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that commencing July 13, 2026, and continuing, evidence or exhibits in the possession of the Clerk’s Office in all criminal cases will be available for viewing, inspection or copying for any attorney appointed by the Court of Appeal upon providing a copy of the Court of Appeal’s appointment order.
There is no longer any need to request a court order to review exhibits, as was required under a prior standing order.
The State Bar Updates Its A.I. Guidance
The State Bar published a revised Practical Guidance for the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence in the Practice of Law. The main addition is agentic A.I., which are tools that take an instruction and work through the steps on their own, within the user’s limits, to autonomously complete a task.
The guidance emphasizes the importance of verifying all A.I. outputs, including from agents. These tools do not substitute for an attorney’s professional judgment and do not change our existing ethical obligations. It’s crucial to independently confirm a tool’s output, confirm that every case exists and holds what it claims to hold, even for the small things. The guidance states that no A.I. system may file a document, communicate with the court, or make a representation on an attorney’s behalf.
The rest will sound familiar. Keep confidential client information out of tools that pose material confidentiality risks. Bill the time actually spent.
Feel free to contact FDAP with questions.
Welcome Back Lauren Dodge
In July we were thrilled to welcome back Lauren Dodge as a FDAP staff attorney. Lauren has dedicated her legal career to criminal and juvenile defense and has previously practiced as both a panel attorney and FDAP staff attorney. Most recently, she spent two years with the Contra Costa County Public Defender, where she represented clients in RJA and post-conviction matters. We’re so lucky to have Lauren back supporting the panel!
Upcoming Trainings
Stay Ahead of the Curve:
Supreme Court Update for Panel Attorneys (CAP-LA)
August 20, 2026, 11:30 a.m. – 12:30 p.m. | Remote
Join CAP-LA staff attorneys Maria Morrison and Kathy Caverly for an hour-long Zoom training covering recently decided Supreme Court cases and pending issues where review has been granted by the High Courts. This is your chance to get up to speed on the decisions reshaping California law — and to hear what’s coming down the pipeline before it lands in your briefs. Whether you’re refining an argument, spotting an issue for the first time, or just want to know what the courts are watching, this session will keep you current on the developments that matter most to your cases. All panel attorneys are strongly encouraged to attend. Don’t miss this opportunity to stay informed on the latest rulings and the issues most likely to shape the law in the months ahead. 1.0 hour MCLE credit offered.
Dependency Seminar (CAP-LA)
September 14, 2026, 9:00 a.m. – 3:30 p.m. | In Person/Remote
Sign up to attend in person or via Zoom. Topics will include: International Issues in Dependency Cases, 2026 Dependency Case Update, Mootness Challenges Post In re D.P. and In re S.R., Removal at Disposition, Dual Supervision under WIC 241.1 and a one hour presentation on Civility in the Legal Profession. 5.0 hours of MCLE credit offered, which includes 1.0 hour of Civility in the Legal Profession.
The Practical and Ethical Use of AI in Appellate Practice (ADI)
October 5, 2026, 12:00 – 1:00 p.m. | Remote
Presented by USF School of Law legal writing professors Nicole Phillips and Megan Hutchinson, this program provides attorneys with a practical introduction to the responsible use of generative AI in legal practice. The program examines lawyers’ ethical and professional competency obligations, explains key AI concepts, and discusses the integration of AI into legal education and legal practice. The program also addresses AI-assisted research, drafting, case preparation, and productivity tools while learning best practices for supervising and verifying AI-generated work. 1.0 hour of Technology MCLE credit.
Panel Victories
Below are a few 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.
A172040 – [Unpublished Opinion | Rex Williams] The Court of Appeal remanded for reconsideration of appellant’s request for mental health diversion. The trial court had based its unsuitability finding on appellant’s poor performance on other forms of supervision. However, there was no evidence appellant would not succeed if placed in “more comprehensive, residential treatment” as proposed.
A171196 – [Unpublished Opinion | Jenny Huang] The Court of Appeal exercised its discretion to treat appellant’s denied motion for discovery under PC 745(d) of the RJA as a petition for writ of mandate. The Court of Appeal issued a peremptory writ and remanded for the trial court to conduct a new hearing reconsidering the discovery motion, which was supported by charging and sentencing data and statistics. The Court of Appeal distinguished between the standard required to prevail on an RJA claim and the lesser threshold required to obtain discovery.
A174004 – [Unpublished Opinion | Jesse Rodriguez] Father appealed from several orders, including those made at a combined jurisdiction/disposition hearing. The Court of Appeal agreed that father’s due process challenges relating to notice were not forfeited even if they were not timely or adequately raised in the juvenile court. Father did not receive written notice of the jurisdiction/disposition hearing, and the juvenile court’s “oral” notice was not clear about the nature of the hearing. The Court of Appeal found these defects were consequential and violated father’s due process rights. The jurisdictional findings and disposition orders were reversed and remanded for further proceedings.