Technology’s Effect on Advocacy
I identify the actual sources of authority and evidence. Research platforms and AI may help locate them, but I obtain and review the underlying opinions, statutes, transcripts, declarations, exhibits, and orders. I test the proposition against the source. I ask whether the case or record supports the exact sentence, not merely its general subject. I verify every quotation and pincite. I compare the language to the original and read enough surrounding material to understand the context. I check the authority’s current status. Significant authorities are Shepardized or KeyCited, and any limiting or adverse treatment is evaluated rather than ignored. I ask AI to attack the brief. I use it to identify unsupported assertions, overlooked distinctions, inconsistent dates, adverse authority, and arguments the opposition is likely to make. I review the final filing version. The PDF submitted to the court, not the Word document, is the operative brief. Pagination, hyperlinks, quotation marks, tables, exhibits, and internal references must all survive conversion.
The technology does not sign the filing. I do.
Appeal addressed a novel or nearly novel issue involving the appealability of orders suspending trustees and appointing interim trustees. The court published the decision to provide a clear answer. The same opinion also addressed counsel’s communications and emphasized that civility is a professional requirement, not simply a matter of etiquette. The two subjects are more connected than they first appear. Making a complete record sometimes requires challenging improper conduct. But taking an issue to the mat does not require surrendering professionalism. Advocacy can be tenacious and civil at the same time. In fact, disciplined advocacy is often more persuasive because it keeps the focus on the law, the evidence, and the client rather than on unnecessary personal conflict.
The Sanction-Proof Workflow
These steps do not eliminate judgment. They force the lawyer to exercise it repeatedly.
No lawyer can guarantee that a brief is literally immune from challenge or sanctions. I use the phrase “sanction-proof” to describe a disciplined process designed to eliminate avoidable errors and demonstrate that the lawyer exercised independent judgment. My process has six essential parts:
My Name Is on the Brief
The most important fact about legal technology is also the simplest: the technology does not sign the filing. I do. My name, not Westlaw’s, Lexis’s, or ChatGPT’s, appears on the brief. My client is relying
21
Consumer Attorneys of California
FORUM September/October 2026
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs