California’s New Legal Rules for 2026: AI, Photo Proof of Service, and Simpler Statements of Decision

New statutes and court rules taking effect in 2026 and 2027 will change how California lawyers serve papers, preserve appellate issues, and disclose their use of artificial intelligence. Appellate attorneys Tim Kowal and Jeff Lewis focus on what actually matters in practice—what to fix now, and where the new traps are likely to appear.

The big changes:

• AI in the Courts: Rule of Court 10.430 requires courts to either ban AI use by judicial officers and research attorneys or adopt a formal AI policy with verification and disclosure requirements. Expect cautious policies, broad disclosures, and little tolerance for “the AI did it” excuses.
• One Deadline for Statements of Decision: AB 515 eliminates the short-trial/long-trial distinction. If you want a statement of decision, you must request it before submitting…and you should do it in writing.

Other changes worth noting:

• Photo Proof of Service: Starting January 2027, AB 747 requires process servers to document service attempts with photographs showing GPS coordinates and timestamps.
• Court Reporter Disclosure: AB 711 requires meet-and-confer declarations to disclose whether court reporter attendance was discussed and the outcome.
• Electronic Service Authorized: SB 85 allows courts to approve service by email or electronic means when traditional service fails.
• Expanded Mediation Authority: Courts may order mediation in cases up to $75,000 if at least one party requests it and no discovery disputes are pending.
• AI Disclosure in Bankruptcy Court: The Southern District of California Bankruptcy Court now requires disclosure of AI tools used and certification of independent accuracy review.

Listen now to understand what to change in your templates and where the next procedural missteps are waiting.

AI-sanctions might get eyeballs, but the bigger sanctions are still for plain old bad lawyering. Jeff also raises this ethical and pragmatic question: who defends the lawyer when sanctions threaten the client? Should counsel facing an OSC retain separate counsel for the sanctions component to avoid divided attention and better protect client interests? What if the costs of independent counsel are likely to exceed the sanction?

• $25K for using Anti-SLAPP as a litigation weapon. A bare-bones anti-SLAPP was amplified by record emails suggesting the strategy was to inflict cost and pain rather than win on the merits.
• $13K for relitigating the merits through a fee appeal. The appeal purported to challenge fees, but largely recycled arguments already rejected in the prior appeal. The court finds the effort both objectively meritless and subjectively aimed at rehashing settled ground.
• <$2K for fabricated authority & thin explanations. Schlichter v. Kennedy results in $1,750 against an attorney who relied on nonexistent or inapposite citations and offered credibility-challenged explanations about verification methods. After the court’s exhaustive point-by-point teardown, the monetary sanction seems merciful.
• Pro per’s sanction is dismissal of appeal. In Arno Kuglua v. Young Park, the Court of Appeal dismisses an appeal for failure to support arguments with proper authority.

Also: AI guidance from the courts**:** The California Courts of Appeal publish user-facing AI guidance emphasizing verification, independent source-checking, and personal accountability for filings—even if AI assists with drafting.

A scandalous Netflix documentary called an unconventional sex-based therapy business an “orgasm cult,” all based on a sole source whose account has several flaws. But the Court of Appeal dismissed the defamation case on anti-SLAPP grounds. Tim and Jeff discuss whether any California defamation case against a media company could survive the one-two punch of anti-SLAPP and NY Times v. Sullivan. They also discuss California’s unique approach to standing—it’s not jurisdictional, it’s purely pragmatic.

• Anti-SLAPP meets documentary defamation: OneTaste Inc. v. Netflix illustrates how courts evaluate actual malice when the plaintiff is treated as at least quasi-public, and how journalistic discretion can sink a claim even where the plaintiff says it provided contrary evidence before publication. Tim flags the built-in squeeze: if public-figure status and the controversy are intertwined, the plaintiff may need discovery to prove merit, but cannot get discovery without first showing merit.
• Standing without injury, by design, not accident: Kashanian v. National Enterprise Systems tees up a standing fight over technical FDCPA disclosure issues, think small-font compliance, with no alleged real-world harm. The takeaway is not subtle: in California, legislative authorization can do a lot of work, and no harm does not necessarily mean no case.
• When the statute creates the bounty, sanctions become the guardrail: The hosts debate whether CCP 128.5 and CCP 128.7 actually deter nuisance filings when the underlying enforcement scheme invites penalty-driven litigation. Is it appropriate—or wise—to use our courts as civil bounty enforcement, devoid of any harm requirement?
• Juror privacy is real, ask the team that wrote the $10,000 check: Don’t research prospective jurors on social media.
• Minute entry, real consequences: A timing skirmish over whether a minute entry can function as an appeal-triggering order ends, for now, with the U.S. Supreme Court declining review. Be conservative in calculating the time to appeal

Want to know why bad AI cites really bother the courts? Jeff and Tim discuss two recent fake-AI-cites cases imposing sanctions and State Bar referrals, and draw this conclusion: It’s not that AI is bad at law—in one of these cases, the court noted that none of the AI mistakes even went in the direction of helping the offending party. Rather, the problem is that AI is just bad at citing and quoting the law. And the courts are super-protective against our legal canon becoming polluted with hallucinations.

• Blame game backfires: In Shayan v. Shakib, appellant’s counsel blamed non-attorney staff for adding the bad AI cites to the brief. The mistakes didn’t really change the arguments, and the court ordered counsel to file a corrected version. But the outcome is going to be the same, plus $7500 sanctions and a State Bar referral.
• Gatekeeping function: Courts emphasize that even when fabricated citations don't advance a party's position, they still threaten "the integrity of courts and the legal profession" by risking that fake law becomes cited as real precedent.
• We discuss updates in the Boies Schiller/Scientology case, and whether these recent cases predict the result.
• Voluntary dismissal dilemma: Tim’s firm filed an amicus brief in the Maniago case, arguing that voluntary dismissals with prejudice should be treated as appealable final judgments, challenging the rule that clerk-entered dismissals are merely "ministerial acts."
• Heated bench: A Texas redistricting case features an unusually scathing dissent beginning with "The main winners from Judge Brown's opinion are George Soros and Gavin Newsom," raising questions about appropriate judicial temperament.

The California Supreme Court’s long-awaited "Taking Offense" decision on gender pronouns in elder care facilities introduces a new “captive audience” exception to the First Amendment. Tim worries this new judicial carve out may creep to other forums; Jeff is unperturbed. Tim also shares insights from the Federalist Society National Conference, before examining a significant appellate-fee ruling.

• Taking Offense v. State (Cal., Nov. 6, 2025, No. S270535) **holds that advocacy groups lack taxpayer standing under CCP §526a to challenge state laws, but still issued 100+ pages addressing the merits through a "captive audience" framework.
• Captive audience concerns: Tim highlights potential "mission creep" with a “captive audience” rationale, potentially extending beyond elder care facilities to courthouses, government offices, and other venues where First Amendment protections could be weakened.
• “Bloodthirsty originalism”: From the Federalist Society conference, Judge Bumatay advocated less deference to stare decisis in favor of constitutional fidelity, while Justices Barrett and Kavanaugh addressed courage and civility in legal practice.
• Discovery fee windfall: In Baer v. Tedder, the court authorized recovery of $113,000 in appellate attorney fees for successfully defending a $10,000 discovery sanction, creating economics similar to anti-SLAPP appeals.
• AI arbitration arrives: The American Arbitration Association announced a pilot program offering AI resolution of construction disputes with human oversight, signaling that AI's impact on legal practice may be just "a couple of years away" rather than decades.
• Oral argument mastery: Federal Circuit judges advised narrowing issues to increase credibility, welcoming judicial interruptions as opportunities, and viewing argument time as the court's time for conversation rather than presentation.

Tune in for practical insights on appellate strategy, the evolving legal landscape, and how to prepare for significant changes in legal practice in the coming years.

Jimmy Azadian is often in the room when federal judges get together to share their personal concerns about the job. When judges are asked to come speak to a group, Jimmy reports that top of mind are the recent threats to judges and the courts—whether from armed vigilantes, protesters, students, or senators.

Jimmy, Tim, and Jeff then turn to some recent SCOTUS and 9th Circuit trends:

• Standing Doctrine Evolution: Courts are scrutinizing what constitutes concrete injury, particularly since Justices Gorsuch and Barrett joined the Supreme Court, with increased scrutiny of statutory damages and class action requirements.
• Birthright Citizenship Battle: In Washington v. Trump, the 9th Circuit held that the 2025 executive order attempting to end birthright citizenship was unconstitutional. But Judge Bumatay's partial dissent questioned states' standing, based on “fiscal” concerns, as too tenuous.
• Anti-SLAPP Shake-up: The en banc 9th Circuit in Gopher Media unanimously held that denials of California anti-SLAPP motions in federal court are no longer immediately appealable, reversing 22-23 years of precedent and potentially driving forum shopping.
• California Laws Preview: New 2026 laws include immigration enforcement limits at schools, required social media account deletion options, restrictions on facial coverings for immigration agents, direct Cal State University admission standards, and regulation of commercial audio volume.

Tune in for essential perspectives on judicial independence, constitutional interpretation, and strategic considerations that could impact your federal practice in the coming year.

AI Reshapes Legal Practice: ClioCon 2025 Delivers a Wake-Up Call

Jeff Lewis reports from the 2025 Clio Cloud Conference in Boston. Day 1 was encouraging, but Jeff reports feeling Day 2 as a “gut punch”: within about 5-10 years, many fundamentals of legal practice will be unrecognizable.

Here are a few ways legal industry leaders suggest you can skate to where the puck is going—rather than finding yourself behind by skating to where it is now.

• The $5 Billion Opportunity: Clio CEO Jack Newton says there are billions in untapped legal services—and AI tools can help lawyers tap it.
• 74% of Billable Tasks Automatable: Clio's research suggests nearly three-quarters of current billable work could be automated. The game: find the redundancy, or else be the redundancy.
• AI Becoming Standard: 79% of legal professionals are now using AI tools (up from just 19% two years ago).
• Time-Tracking Revolution: Before AI replaces your billables, let it enhance them: AI-powered tools like Point One and Tempello automatically capture and enter your time—you might be surprised how much money you’re leaving on the table.
• Context-Aware Legal Research: Clio's new "Vincent" platform combines practice management data with comprehensive legal research to produce AI responses grounded in both case facts and applicable law, reducing hallucinations and providing verifiable citations.
• The Neurosurgeon Analogy: Susskind's provocative comparison suggests that just as AI might make brain surgery obsolete through prevention and precision, traditional legal services may be replaced by more efficient, AI-driven alternatives that clients prefer.

True, there are shiny objects out there, and as Tim says many will get “Sherlocked”—become obsolete as the underlying AI tech improves. But getting in the game is key—the sidelines are going to be a very unhappy place very soon.

Few lawyers and LRW instructors write and think more about AI than Professor Jane Woods of Mizzou Law, who offers this most important AI advice: If you haven’t read the case, don’t cite the case.

• The Boies Schiller Cautionary Tale: That would have saved Boies Schiller’s bacon. We discuss the high-profile Scientology/Masterson appeal, and whether the Court of Appeal is going to strike plaintiff’s respondent’s brief because of the Boies Schiller attorneys hallucinated cases and otherwise wrong legal citations.
• AI's Ideal Applications: Most effective AI uses include drafting standard legal sections, style polishing, fact organization, and processing large records.
• How to AI in Legal Practice: Avoid garbage-in-garbage-out by feeding case opinion PDFs from authoritative legal databases directly into AI projects—don’t let AI search the internet on its own.
• Don’t hate the "Em Dash"! Some firms have reportedly banned em dashes in legal writing because they're seen as indicators of AI-generated text, highlighting how AI's stylistic preferences (even good ones!) may be reshaping legal writing conventions.
• Should lawyers disclose AI use? It depends. But if you’re thinking about charging $900/hour and to outsource to a robot, maybe don’t do that.

Jeff thinks our business and even this podcast will be aped by robots by this time next year. Until then, tune in for tips on how best to resist or suck up to the robot overlords.