Technology’s Effect on Advocacy
A Citation Is a Promise
sentence. If the case does not support the full proposition, I narrow the proposition or find better authority. That process may produce a less dramatic sentence. It produces a stronger brief.
I regard every citation as a promise to the court. It says: if you spend your time checking my work, you will find what I represented. That means the authority must support the precise proposition for which it is cited. It is not enough that the case discusses the general subject. It is not enough that a headnote appears useful. It is not enough that an AI tool produces a quotation and page number. I open the opinion. I verify the quoted language. I read the surrounding paragraphs. I determine whether the statement was necessary to the decision, whether it was limited by the facts, and whether the court later qualified it. I confirm the pincite and check the subsequent history. The same discipline applies to the record. A citation to a declaration should direct the court to the relevant paragraph, not merely the entire document. A deposition citation should accurately reflect the testimony at the cited page and line. A factual statement should not convert a witness’s uncertainty into a definitive admission or transform an expert’s qualified opinion into an absolute conclusion. One of the easiest ways to lose credibility is to write a factual narrative from memory and add citations afterward. Memory inevitably compresses, simplifies, and sometimes improves the evidence. The record may be more complicated. The testimony may contain a qualification. The document may support only part of the sentence. For that reason, I try to draft from the source. I attach record support while writing rather than treating citations as a final clerical step. If the evidence does not support the sentence as written, I revise the
Making the Record Is Part of the Brief
My appellate background makes me approach trial- court briefing with the expectation that the record may one day be reviewed by someone who was not present when the events occurred. That expectation affects more than writing. It affects how I litigate the case from the beginning. Was the objection made clearly and on the correct ground? Was the excluded evidence identified through an adequate offer of proof? Was the exhibit authenticated? Did the court rule? Is the ruling reflected in the minute order or transcript? Did the briefing present the issue in a form that permits meaningful review? If emergency relief was sought, does the record show why the harm could not await ordinary notice? These questions are not reserved for appellate lawyers. Every trial lawyer creates an appellate record, whether intentionally or not. My willingness to take issues to the mat comes from understanding that unresolved ambiguity rarely helps the vulnerable client. If an issue matters, I want it fully researched, clearly presented, and properly preserved. That does not mean turning every disagreement into unnecessary combat. It means knowing when the point is legally consequential and refusing to abandon it merely because the path is difficult. A recent published opinion arising from one of my trust cases illustrates both aspects of that responsibility. In Young v. Hartford , the Court of
20
Consumer Attorneys of California
FORUM September/October 2026
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs