Tom Fay spent years as the lead civil writs attorney for California's 4th District, Division 3, processing every emergency petition that crossed the court's threshold. Effective June 29, 2026, he's now Judge Tom Fay of the Orange County Superior Court. We caught Judge Fay between appointments for an inside look at what actually happens when your writ petition hits the clerk's desk—and what separates the petitions that get a panel's attention from those that don't.

Key points:

• Help the court triage: The first question isn't the merits—it's “when is the next hearing and what happens if we don't act today?” Every writ petition is sorted the moment it arrives: same-day, next writ conference, or back of the queue. Make sure your cover page and first page of the petition allow the court to triage.
• Call the clerk before you file: For same-day stays, call the court first. The panel needs three justices, a writ attorney, and clerk staff simultaneously available. A 4:30 p.m. filing without advance notice is nearly impossible to act on.
• 59 days is not an emergency: Waiting until day 59 of a 60-day window sends a signal. Judge Fay calls it "revealed preferences"—if you treated it like a crisis, you would have filed sooner.
• Summary denials are inscrutable by design: A one-liner means the petition is denied and nothing else—not that your arguments were wrong (but that’s a possibility, too).
• “Speaking denials” are intentional: If the court adds a sentence beyond the boilerplate denial, assume it’s deliberate.

We also cover choosing the right tone, and how to frame your harm as irreparable.

Bookmark this one for next time you draft a writ petition.

What about a writ petition is most mystifying? What is your guiding light for a successful petition?

One of just 12 California lawyers dual-certified in both family and appellate law, Lisa McCall has an unusually clear view of how family trial work plays out on appeal. Lisa shares the record‑killing mistakes family lawyers often make.

And with 14 published opinions, Lisa shares about publish-worthy issues and her work on the amicus committee at the Association of Certified Family Law Specialists to clarify the law.

We also discuss recent changes to domestic violence laws, and to the statement of decision procedures.

Key points:

• Statements of decision: Request early. Starting January 2027, you must request a statement of decision before submission—make it the last line of closing—or you lose it. Objections drop to a 10‑day window, and judgments must be prepared within 30 days. (CCP §§ 632, 634).
• 3044 findings: miss them, you lose. Missing written findings on the Family Code section 3044 domestic‑violence custody presumption is treated as a structural error—one of the rare spots where a procedural miss virtually guarantees reversal.
• Offers of proof: get them on paper. When a judge excludes evidence and won’t hear oral offers of proof, preserve the issue with written offers explaining what the evidence would have shown, like in Marriage of Burmeister.
• Smart motions in limine in family court. Broad “exclude everything” motions go nowhere; targeted motions to enforce prior orders or strip out legally improper recommendations are where motions in limine earn their keep.

If your family law case has even a shot at the Court of Appeal, don’t walk into your next hearing blind—listen to this episode first.

John Snow, Director of Legal and Trial Training at the Los Angeles City Attorney's Office and author of Rules to Speak By (Carolina Academic Press, 2026), joins Tim Kowal and Jeff Lewis to discuss what it actually takes to be an effective oral advocate. Snow has tried more than 30 cases to completion in state and federal court and spent years designing trial training programs for lawyers at the LA City Attorney's Office, experience that grounds every practical lesson in the book.

Snow argues that oral advocacy is a rule-governed discipline, not a natural talent, and that the lawyers who appear effortless have simply practiced more than anyone realizes. Drawing on cognitive psychology research alongside transcripts from high-profile trials, he explains how audiences absorb spoken argument and how advocates routinely lose their audience without knowing it. He walks through specific techniques, including the one-fact-per-question rule on cross-examination, slide design that functions like a billboard rather than a script, and how to respond to hostile bench questions without hedging or losing credibility. He also addresses how trial conduct shapes the appellate record, making clear that a single, well-placed sentence at trial can preserve an issue for review.

Drawing on cognitive psychology research and transcripts from high-profile trials, he explains how audiences absorb spoken argument—and how advocates routinely lose their audience without knowing it.

We discuss:

• The one-fact-per-question rule on cross-examination—otherwise you’ll lose the witness, and the jury.
• Designing PowerPoint slides? Think billboards, not scripts
• How to respond to hostile bench questions without hedging or losing credibility.
• The cognitive psychology principles behind Snow's ten rules for oral advocacy
• Cross-examination technique and how precise phrasing controls witness responses
• Handling hostile questions from an appellate panel without losing confidence

What is the single oral advocacy habit you have found hardest to break, even after years in the courtroom?

Drawing on 20 years observing attorney behavior, Hon. Stuart M. Rice (ret.) now at JAMS, speaks freely. This episode is a rare candid debrief from the other side of the bench.

Key topics:

• What incivility actually costs you in court: Judge Rice served on the statewide civility task force and watched uncivil conduct for two decades. His diagnosis: it's not the screamer at deposition—it's the subtler patterns that quietly erode a lawyer's credibility with the bench.
• The task force secured a new oath provision requiring lawyers admitted since 2014 to attest to treating others with "dignity, respect, and courtesy"—but how much does an oath really change behavior?
• Show up in person—especially when you can lose: Remote appearances transformed California courtrooms post-COVID, and not for the better. Judge Rice's rule from the bench: if you can win or lose at a hearing, you will do better work in the room.
• And that's true in mediation, too.
• Complex mediation is a strategy problem, not just a settlement problem: As the judge who presided over all of the 2025 Palisades Fire consolidated cases and California's Johnson & Johnson ovarian cancer litigation, Judge Rice brings a systems view to large multi-plaintiff matters. He recently wrote in the Daily Journal on what it takes to succeed in complex mediations—and his JAMS practice is built around exactly these cases.
• Pupillage groups and the civility dividend: As president of the Benjamin Aranda III Inn of Court, Judge Rice restructured pupillage groups to require two new members per group who were law students or lawyers within five years of practice—successfully shifting the Inn's demographics and, he argues, its culture.
• The Adam Z. Rice Memorial Scholarship: Judge Rice is in his fourth consecutive year as president of the California Judges Foundation, which funds needs-based scholarships for law students from disadvantaged backgrounds. The scholarship is named for his late son. This year's award included an offer of free mentoring until the recipient's first legal job. Find it by searching "Adam Rice Memorial Scholarship" or visiting caljudges.org.

Your next status conference is closer than you think. Hit play before it gets here—this episode will change how you read the room.

Does your office have a blank 170.6 form ready to go for a certain judge? Stop doing that. A 170.6 peremptory challenge is no longer automatic: the California Supreme Court now authorizes courts to look behind your 170.6. The touchstone is whether your 170.6 is based on a genuine belief of prejudice—or mere grievance.

But first, a $3 million sanctions order against Quinn Emanuel in a big‑pharma advertising case, where an expert obtained key clinical data before it was disclosed and the firm failed to correct the record. The Northern District of California called out firm culture, and ordering the attorneys to prepare and lead an eight‑hour ethics MCLE.

• How a three‑million‑dollar sanctions order against Quinn Emanuel grew out of failures to correct prior statements about expert discovery.
• The court’s criticism of a “culture of bad ethics decisions” and the requirement for a bespoke eight‑hour ethics course.
• The facts in J.O. v. Superior Court, including 325 peremptory challenges aimed at removing a single judge from conservatorship matters.
• The new three‑step framework for challenging bad‑faith, blanket 170.6 practices and what counts as a prima facie showing.
• Strategic implications for lawyers who rely on peremptory challenges in small counties and specialized calendars.

What is your firm’s 170.6 practice like? Expect any changes after J.O.?

The fall of copyright troll Prenda Law is, according to the ABA Journal, "part of legal folklore." We talk with the attorney who kicked over the first domino, Morgan Pietz.

Prenda Law was the copyright trolling operation that filed approximately 20,000 abusive BitTorrent lawsuits targeting anonymous defendants for alleged pornography downloads. Morgan's work on that case resulted in criminal prosecutions and a now-famous sanctions order by Judge Otis Wright, called the Star Trek order (e.g., though the plaintiffs "boldly probe the outskirts of law, the only enterprise they resemble is RICO").

Morgan discusses how the Prenda Law scheme worked, what made it cross the line from aggressive litigation into fraud, and how he uncovered the deception through creative investigation and a willingness to question claims that didn't sound right.

The conversation also covers Morgan's work on anonymous speech litigation.

Everyone is watching Family Violence Appellate Project v. Superior Court (S288176) to see if the California Supreme Court is going to strike down the ban on electronic recording of court proceedings. There is a steady drumbeat in favor, including the Los Angeles County Superior Court and other courts.

But are we missing a perspective?

Stephanie Leslie is the immediate past president of the California Deposition Reporters Association and co-founder of Regal Court Reporting. She explains why certified shorthand reporters remain the gold standard for the verbatim record—and why replacing them with electronic recording could be a mistake.

• Yes, we all want to solve the court-reporter shortage.
• But the short-term gain of using electronic recordings could reverse a recent uptick of new CSR entrants.

The way forward, Stephanie argues, is continuing to invest in recruitment and training.

And recent AI pressures are sparking new interest in court-reporting.

Also, AI and electronic recording still struggle with minority accents, overlapping speakers, and courtroom noise. Even federal courts with state-of-the-art equipment produce transcripts filled with "inaudibles" and misattributed speakers because no human was present to stop the proceeding and clarify the record.

In this episode, we discuss:

• Why the court reporter shortage was caused by budget cuts, not by the profession
• How voice writers are replenishing the pipeline faster than traditional stenographers
• Why AI transcription still fails in real courtrooms with accents, noise, and overlapping speakers
• Resource misallocation: multiple reporters sitting idle in the same courtroom
• Best practices for attorneys to secure reporters and get clean transcripts

What experiences can you share about using an electronic recording to create a transcript?

The Honorable Tani Cantil-Sakauye led the state judiciary through the Great Recession's budget crisis, bail reform advocacy, and the COVID-19 pandemic. Now she has three new roles: President and CEO of the Public Policy Institute of California, a neutral at ADR Services, and a founding voice of the Alliance of Former Chief Justices.

CJ Cantil-Sakauye talks with Tim Kowal and Jeff Lewis about what actually gets petitions for review granted. If the Supreme Court’s job is not to correct errors, then what is it?

• The justices look for issues that surface conflict, systemic mischief, or other need to weigh in to avoid broader problems.
• So how do you find those issues? Each justice has a mental list—sometimes those are visible in their concurrences and dissents.
• Other places to look: amicus briefs from government entities.

CJ Cantil-Sakauye also addresses why her Court viewed depublication as heavy-handed and preferred granting review to provide legal explanation

And why grant-and-transfer requires diplomatic restraint to avoid appearing to rebuke Court of Appeal colleagues.

We also discuss:

• Why rescue missions almost always fail
• Why Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye's court limited depublication to the rarest circumstances and changed the rules to keep granted cases citable
• The mediation stumbling blocks she encounters when trial counsel defends the trial record instead of negotiating settlement
• How COVID permanently transformed access to justice through electronic filing and remote appearances
• The structural tension created by California's legislative control over civil procedure, unlike most states where supreme courts govern procedural rules

What’s the biggest factor you think makes the California Supreme Court take a case?