Read on for important information about submitting “drafts” to FDAP, a client communication research opportunity, upcoming trainings, and panel victories.
A Draft is Not a “Draft” and How to Make More Money
In all assisted cases and in no-issue independent panel cases, a FDAP staff attorney reviews the opening brief (and sometimes other pleadings) prior to filing. What a panel attorney submits to FDAP for such a review must be “ready to file,”* i.e. not a mere draft, even if in our communications we have called it a “draft.”
There are two reasons for this.
First, we do not have the staffing to be doing the work of counsel of record. The purpose of our review is not to do things the panel attorney has the experience and skills to do: fix typos, improve syntax, fill in gaps in argumentation, etc. FDAP is not counsel of record and it is the obligation of the appointed attorney, not FDAP, to prepare a brief that is ready to file. FDAP’s role is more in the quality control realm, confirming there are no issues in a case and, in assisted cases, providing feedback as the attorney is developing their appellate research and brief-writing skills.
Second, we evaluate the work of panel attorneys in all their cases and a pre-filing review of an AOB is a major component of that review. If the brief submitted to us prior to filing is not ready to file, then we will reach the conclusion that the attorney still needs FDAP’s review and their appointments will remain assisted, paid at the lowest of the three hourly rates ($120, instead of $130 or $140/hour).
Bottom line: send to us your best work, a ready-to-be filed* brief.
* Caveat: Do not prepare the tables prior to sending us a pre-filing brief. We don’t need the tables and if there are changes, you will have to re-do them.
Client Communication Research
In partnership with FDAP, the Samuelson Law, Technology & Public Policy Clinic at Berkeley Law is creating resources for communicating with clients in CDCR. The clinic is hoping to interview a handful of panel attorneys with experience corresponding via legal mail, tablets, and/or confidential legal calls. They are also interested in learning more about attorneys’ contact with CDCR staff. Please contact Arman Ramezani (aramezani@clinical.law.
Upcoming Trainings
Introduction to Civil Commitment Appeals (All Projects)
March 4, 2026, 12:00 – 1:00 p.m. | Remote
Join staff attorneys from all five appellate projects for an overview of civil commitment appeals. California has several statutes that provide for the involuntary commitment of individuals with mental health diagnoses. This webinar will cover all of these schemes, as well as involuntary medication orders and issues common across all types of civil commitment appeals. This training is appropriate for all attorneys, but is geared towards attorneys without civil commitment appeal experience. Please attend if you want to learn about this interesting and rewarding area of appellate practice and/or are interested in expanding your practice to include these cases. 1.0 hour of MCLE credit is offered.
CADC Annual Conference & Seminar
March 20 – 21, 2026 | In-person
Registration is now open for CADC’s Annual Conference and Seminar, which will be held in-person only at the South San Francisco Conference Center. The two-day conference will be filled with informative and inspiring presentations, including the Project Directors Roundtable, a report from CADC’s lobbyist and criminal and dependency break-out sessions, providing a total of up to 8.25 hours of MCLE credit.
SDAP Seminar – Save the Date – May 1, 2026 | Remote
Please save the date for SDAP’s annual seminar! This year’s program will include a range of topics, including the use of AI (artificial intelligence) in appellate practice. Sixth District Court of Appeal Associate Justice Charles E. Wilson will speak.
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.
A173844 – [Unpublished Opinion | Nat Miller] The Court of Appeal conditionally reversed the denial of pretrial mental health diversion (PC 1001.36), holding the trial court failed to exercise informed discretion by focusing on appellant’s generalized risk of violence rather than the required inquiry: whether appellant posed an unreasonable risk of committing a super strike offense.
A170342 – [Unpublished Opinion | Christina Alvarez] The Court of Appeal remanded for resentencing because the trial court relied on facts not proven beyond a reasonable doubt when it found, as an aggravating circumstance, that the underlying crime involved great violence and great bodily harm. The Court also remanded for reconsideration of appellant’s Marsden motion, as the trial court failed to conduct an adequate inquiry into whether defense counsel had adequately prepared for sentencing.
A172292 – [Unpublished Opinion | Carrie Kojimoto] The Court of Appeal struck a $300 restitution fine imposed on appellant, a minor, as a condition of probation. Under WIC 730.6(a)(2), the court could not require both direct victim restitution and a separate, punitive restitution fine.
A173769 – [Unpublished Opinion | Leslie Barry] Father appealed the denial of his request for presumed father status, denial of his WIC 388 petition, and termination of his parental rights. The Court of Appeal agreed that the juvenile court did not conduct a proper paternity inquiry and did not receive the required notice or counsel to which he was entitled. In addition, the juvenile court erred by not finding father to be the minor’s presumed father. These errors were prejudicial. The order terminating parental rights was vacated and remanded for further proceedings.