Read on for important information about hourly rate increases and claims payments, FDAP’s annual seminar, other upcoming trainings, panel victories, and electronic transcripts.
$10/Hour Panel Raise in Effect for Cases in Which the Court Files the Appointment Order on or after July 1, 2025
The new state budget includes funding to increase the panel hourly rates by $10/hour. The new rates apply only to appointments in which the Court of Appeal filed the appointment order on or after July 1, 2025.
The new rates are:
- $120/hour for all assisted cases
- $130/hour for standard independent cases
- $140/hour for upper tier independent cases
The new rates and the definition of “upper tier” cases can be found on the FDAP Getting Paid page.
Save the date for FDAP’s Annual Seminar!
The seminar will be held in person on October 10, 2025 at the California Endowment’s conference center in downtown Oakland. Join us for a day of criminal and dependency breakout sessions, a keynote speaker, lunch, and the opportunity to connect with your colleagues. Approximately 5.0 hours of MCLE credit, including appellate and criminal specialization, will be provided.
Upcoming Trainings From the Appellate Projects
Dependency Case Law Update (ADI)
July 24, 2025 12:00-1:00 p.m. | Remote
Staff attorney Laura Furness will cover new California dependency cases, discuss trends in recent case law, and share successes in dependency appeals.
The training qualifies for 1.0 hour of general and appellate specialization MCLE.
CAP-LA Summer 2025 Seminar
July 29 & 30, 2025 | Remote
CAP-LA’s Summer 2025 “Appellate Practice Selected Topics” Seminar will be held July 29 (10:00 – 12:10) & 30 (10:00 – 1:20), 2025, via Zoom. Topics will include: Updates in Criminal Case Law; A.I. In the Practice of Law; Ethical Considerations (with focus on A.I. issues); Tips for Challenging Aggravating Factors on Appeal; and Sentencing Alternatives. 5.0 hours of MCLE credit will be provided, including 1 hour of Ethics. A detailed schedule is provided at the registration link.
CAP-LA Dependency Seminar
Sept. 8, 2025 | In-person/Remote
CAP-LA’s Dependency Seminar will be held September 8, 2025, at the DTLA California Endowment’s conference center. This seminar will be presented live and via Zoom. Approximately 5.0 hours MCLE credit will be provided. Topics and registration information to be provided at a later date.
Electronic Transcripts
As explained in previous panel bulletins, the courts are moving from paper to electronic transcripts. A reminder about a couple of new procedures and practices:
- FDAP will share electronic transcripts with panel attorneys via email or Google Drive, depending on the size of the transcript. See the May 2025 panel bulletin for more information.
- For cases with an appointment order on or after March 1, 2025, printing of the electronic transcripts for the client is compensable at actual cost, if reasonable, when the record is requested by the client and the client is unable to receive an electronic file. See the March 2025 panel bulletin for more information about this and other changes to the compensation guidelines.
Some Claims Payments Delayed Until July 7
The JCC has asked that the projects share with panel attorneys that “due to year end activities,” claims approved by the JCC (after project approval) between June 12 and June 26 will be processed by the JCC accounting unit on July 2, with anticipated payment July 7, 2025, which may be later than expected in some cases. Subsequent claims will be processed under the normal schedule. The JCC adds “We apologize for the late notice. Please share this with the panel and we will work to ensure we provide advance notice going forward.”
Attorney Block on First District Brief Covers
The First District no longer requires that panel attorneys include on the cover of briefs the fact that they are appointed and their designation as independent or assisted. This policy was changed in 2021. Accordingly, panel attorney briefs, like briefs filed by any attorney litigating in the First District, need only include the information required by Rule 8.40(b)(1). We encourage attorneys to remove extraneous information from brief covers.
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.
A166218 – [Unpublished Opinion | Janice Lagerlof] The Court of Appeal reversed appellant’s murder and attempted murder convictions because the trial court failed to sua sponte instruct the jury on imperfect self-defense for attempted murder (CALCRIM No. 604) despite substantial supporting evidence.
A170958 – [Unpublished Opinion | John Staley] The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s denial of mental health diversion under PC 1001.36, concluding it abused its discretion by finding that appellant’s mental disorders were not a significant factor of the offense. The court conditionally reversed the judgment and remanded for the trial court to reconsider the motion.
A164991 – [Unpublished Opinion | Steven Schorr] The Court of Appeal reversed appellant’s second-degree murder conviction because the trial court prejudicially erred in instructing the jury on the knowledge element of implied malice. The trial court’s answer to the jury’s question during deliberation permitted the jury to convict appellant of implied malice murder even if they did not believe she knew her act was dangerous to human life at the time she performed it. Also, the Court of Appeal conditionally reversed the balance of the judgment and remanded for a new Pitchess hearing because the in camera hearing was not reported, so the record was inadequate to review the trial court’s ruling.
A166594 – [Unpublished Opinion | Gabriel Bassan] The Court of Appeal reversed appellant’s conviction of being an accessory after the fact to murder because he was prejudiced by counsel’s failure to raise mistake of fact as to whether his co-defendant killed in self-defense. The Court of Appeal concluded that appellant’s trial counsel was ineffective as her incorrect equation of the evading and accessory charges was inexplicable and shows that her approach for the accessory charge was not tactical.