Stories in this week's episode:

The troubling implications of the Supreme Court's transgender athlete decision

Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of UC Berkeley School of Law, argues the Supreme Court's ruling in West Virginia v. B.P.J. weakens intermediate scrutiny by accepting broad generalizations rather than requiring an individualized showing of harm. Chemerinsky ties the 6-3 decision to a broader pattern in which the Court has repeatedly declined to protect transgender individuals from discrimination.

The limits of inadvertent disclosure

Sanford Jay Rosen and Ernest Galvan, of Rosen Bien Galvan and Grunfeld LLP, break down the Fourth District's ruling in Popa v. Simpson, arguing that stretching Rico v. Mitsubishi Motors Corp. to disqualify counsel over discoverable material undermines a trial's basic function as a search for the truth. They also lay out guidance on responding to inadvertent disclosures.

Remote workers, noncompetes and the new choice-of-law battlefield

David S. Cunningham III, a retired judge and neutral at JAMS, examines how remote work has turned noncompete enforcement into a choice-of-law problem, since an employee's residence, work location and customer base can each point to a different state's rules. Cunningham proposes early mediation and arbitration to resolve these disputes — without a multi-jurisdictional legal battle.

Cite Out at the Big Nerd Corral

Benjamin G. Shatz stages The Bluebook and the California Style Manual as gunslingers fighting for supremacy under Rule 1.200, with practitioner survey data giving the Yellowbook a real edge.

Licensed in Illinois, untouchable in California: The extraordinary career of Sidney Korshak

William M. Paparian traces how an unlicensed Chicago lawyer ran labor deals and Hollywood contracts from a Beverly Hills corner table without ever facing indictment, and asks what that model would face today.

I lied

Arthur Gilbert confesses to letting ChatGPT soften his headline, then questions whether AI can ever capture the irony of good legal writing as California's courts move to regulate its use.

Columns in this episode:

After J.O., when should attorneys expect a CCP 170.6 challenge?

J.O. v. Superior Court stripped blanket CCP 170.6 challenges of their immunity from attack. Trial and litigation attorney James G. Perry asks the harder question: when unrelated attorneys all paper the same judge, how does anyone prove the coordinated "policy" Batson burden-shifting demands?

An extraordinary right, narrowed by an extraordinary abuse

The CCP 170.6 affidavit that once ended all inquiry can now begin one. Okorie Okorocha of Toxicolawgy.com argues J.O. narrowed the right for every litigant — hitting hardest the lawyer who challenges a judge he genuinely believes is biased.

Capital punishment's forgotten Barbara Graham

Likely guilty, almost certainly denied a fair trial. Los Angeles lawyer John S. Caragozian revisits Barbara Graham's 1955 execution — a buried witness statement, a staged alibi, a hanging judge — and the death-penalty debate it briefly forced open.

Stories in this episode of Bench & Bar:

Inconceivable! Judges mangling famous lines from literature

Glendale Courthouse Judge Ashfaq G. Chowdhury traces the misused phrase "more honored in the breach than the observance" from Hamlet to its loose courtroom life, crediting Justice Van Dyke's precise 1899 use in Wright v. Eastlick.

We Came to Be Plaintiff Lawyers

Litigation law clerk Imdad Rahman argues the June 18 Uber–Consumer Attorneys deal that scrapped both rideshare ballot initiatives quietly traded away the medical liens that get uninsured clients treated.

The People v. The Bench and Bar

Stalwart Law Group's Edwin Hong examines eroding public trust in the profession — 17% of Americans rate lawyers' honesty highly — and argues it's rebuilt not in galas but in thousands of small, unseen courtroom decisions.

In this week's episode:

With all due respect, it means the opposite

Baruch C. Cohen of the Law Office of Baruch C. Cohen APLC examines the courtroom phrase "with all due respect" and what it signals when counsel deploys it against a tentative ruling already committed to writing. Cohen argues the disclaimer is a shield that reveals the absence of the respect it claims, and that the most experienced litigators say less when a ruling already favors them — pressing past a firm tentative tends to harden the record, not move it.

A new path for construction defects in California

Brenda K. Radmacher, partner at Seyfarth Shaw LLP, breaks down Assembly Bill 1903, the most sweeping proposed overhaul of California's construction defect regime since SB 800, the Right to Repair Act. The bill would make the prelitigation repair process a true prerequisite to suit, restore a resultant-damage requirement of present physical damage, and create a voluntary "certified building" pathway that could immunize qualifying condominium projects from later defect claims.

What caregiving taught me about being a better lawyer

Jessica K. Lomakin, partner at Best Best & Krieger LLP, reframes the unbilled, largely invisible labor of caregiving — what she calls the "fourth shift" — as a category of work in itself rather than an interruption to legal practice. Lomakin argues the judgment, triage, and decision-making under incomplete information it demands are the same skills that make a capable lawyer, and that naming that reality serves the profession better than absorbing it in silence.

In this episode of Bench & Bar:

The push to rein in discovery abuse

Retired Los Angeles County Superior Court Independent Calendar Judge Mel Red Recana responds to Judge Lawrence Riff's 10 Principles for Fixing Civil Discovery, arguing that cultural reform alone isn't enough. Recana calls for embedding the principles into daily courtroom practice, local rules, and legislation modeled after CCP 2016.090 with enforceable sanctions for violations.

Deja vu: Lawyer's mistakes might mean retrying the same PI case

Daniel V. Kohls, neutral at Signature Resolution, breaks down why a clear attorney error doesn't automatically produce a viable malpractice claim. Under California's trial-within-a-trial methodology, plaintiffs must relitigate the underlying personal injury case to establish causation — and if that case lacked merit or the original judgment was uncollectible, the malpractice claim fails with it.

How Rutgers' $500M fumble can help reform college football

Frank N. Darras, founding partner at DarrasLaw, uses Rutgers University's 516-million-dollar athletics deficit as a case study in what happens when elite conference ambitions outpace financial oversight. Darras proposes a dedicated college football commissioner with authority to set NIL standards, enforce spending caps, and require independent audits — backed by a governing charter with real legal teeth.

In this episode:

Don't sign blind: How Campos redefines judicial responsibility

Bernard C. Barmann Jr. of the Metro Justice Building contends that In re Domestic Partnership of Torres Campos and Munoz extends citation verification obligations directly to the bench. With nearly 1,000 U.S. hallucination incidents logged as of May 2026, judges who sign proposed orders containing unverified authorities now face institutional, reputational, and appellate risk.

Church v. State: A takings conundrum

Michael M. Berger of Manatt, Phelps and Phillips examines the federal government's effort to condemn a 1.3-mile border wall gap owned by the Catholic Diocese of Las Cruces, setting up a rare First and Fifth Amendment collision. Under Wilson versus Block, the Diocese must first establish that the proposed wall would impair pilgrim access to the Mount Cristo Rey shrine before the government must justify its interest as compelling and least restrictive.

When the benefits end: Workers' comp timelines vs. human recovery

Yosi Yahoudai and Melissa Jamero Herbito of J&Y Law argue that California's workers' compensation system closes cases on statutory timelines that routinely diverge from actual recovery. Labor Code section 4660.1(c) leaves cognitive and psychiatric impairments least reflected in permanent disability ratings — and third-party liability exposure is often the only path to fuller recovery.

In This Episode

"I attended a law, AI and child safety conference. What I heard was shocking"

Zachary N. Zaharoff of Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy reports that a Media Law Resource Center conference on child safety online was dominated by corporate liability strategy, not child welfare. Platform attorneys should expect Section 230 and First Amendment defenses to remain the industry's primary shield as these cases advance.

"Bad AI citations: Crimes and punishments"

Myron Moskovitz of the Moskovitz Appellate Team examines a California appellate case where fabricated citations ensnared both an attorney and judicial officers in the same proceeding. The attorney faced sanctions and a State Bar referral; the judicial officers did not. Citation verification now runs to the bench — and sanctions exposure remains uneven.

"Protect access to justice and be munificent"

Arash Homampour and Nicholas Rowley of Trial Lawyers for Justice argue that Uber's proposed California constitutional amendment would cap plaintiff-side contingency fees in motor vehicle and products liability cases while leaving defense arrangements untouched. The Legislative Analyst's Office projects reduced filings and higher Medi-Cal costs.

Read all three columns and browse the full Perspectives section at dailyjournal.com.