A civil litigant, hit with $200,000 sanctions for plotting the kidnapping and murder of the defendant, gets the sanctions reversed.

Next week the California Supreme Court will hear oral argument on whether the state can mandate long-term care facility employees to use residents’ preferred pronouns. If this is consistent with the First Amendment, could conservative states mandate hospitals refer to fetuses as “unborn children”?

The State Bar used AI to create bar exam questions.

An attorney used a cartoon dragon watermark in his federal filing.

And Jeff reports some tips from the recent San Francisco CLA/OCBA appellate conference.

Appellate Specialist Jeff Lewis' biography, LinkedIn profile, and Twitter feed.

Appellate Specialist Tim Kowal's biography, LinkedIn profile, Twitter feed, and YouTube page.

Sign up for Not To Be Published, Tim Kowal’s weekly legal update, or view his blog of recent cases.

Other items discussed in the episode:

• Videos from this episode will be posted at Tim Kowal’s YouTube channel.

Apple said no jab, no job. The actor sued. The Court of Appeal holds the jab policy is expressive conduct, and thus the suit was a SLAPP.

Apple Studios dropped an actor from its Manhunt miniseries over a COVID vaccine mandate. The actor sued. Apple filed an anti-SLAPP motion—and won. Jeff and Tim break down Sexton v. Apple Studios and ask:

• Is a vaccine mandate a creative decision?
• Do logistical decisions become “expressive” just because they are part of making a film?
• The court held that following “contemporary conventional wisdom” was reasonable, but what happens when that wisdom was arrived at suddenly in a matter of a few months—and then is abandoned just as suddenly?
• And recall past “contemporary conventional wisdom” that is now abandoned: smoking was safe (even good for you!); thalidomide was good for pregnant women; Fen-Phen and Vioxx were promoted. Tim notes that much medical orthodoxy has a short shelf life and the law needs to allow room for individual choice. Jeff notes that in emergency situations the law needs to defer to coalescing expert opinion and best practices. We discuss, you decide.

Also:

• A pro se litigant tricks a New York court into letting his AI avatar argue for him. (Spoiler: it did not go well.)
• Plus, updates on shadow docket misadventures and deportation do-overs.

Appellate Specialist Jeff Lewis' biography, LinkedIn profile, and Twitter feed.

Appellate Specialist Tim Kowal's biography, LinkedIn profile, Twitter feed, and YouTube page.

Sign up for Not To Be Published, Tim Kowal’s weekly legal update, or view his blog of recent cases.

Other items discussed in the episode:

• Apple’s mandatory vaccine is “creative” expression—employee’s lawsuit held a SLAPP

Alan Dershowitz signed a complaint containing frivolous allegations in Kerri Lake v. Gates. But he’s only “of counsel” who reviewed one paragraph, containing nothing frivolous. So the panel reversed the Rule 11 sanctions—but warns that, going forward, “of counsel” is not a valid defense. Judge Bumatay writes separately to say it should be. Jeff agrees with the majority, but Tim raises a possible chilling effect for trial consultants and appellate counsel—does one bad banana expose the entire trial team to sanctions?

Also:

• Is judicial impeachment a real threat or just cable-news cosplay?
• Discovery fee awards aren’t sanctions unless the judge calls it a sanction.
• A SLAPP fee order isn't separately appealable—even if it feels like it should be.
• Teaser for next week: Sexton v. Apple Studios—where vaccine mandates, historical drama, and anti-SLAPP collide.

Appellate Specialist Jeff Lewis' biography, LinkedIn profile, and Twitter feed.

Appellate Specialist Tim Kowal's biography, LinkedIn profile, Twitter feed, and YouTube page.

Sign up for Not To Be Published, Tim Kowal’s weekly legal update, or view his blog of recent cases.

Other items discussed in the episode:

• You can appeal discovery sanctions, but not a mere cost allocation
• Can an attorney sign as to only part of a pleading?
• Are articles of impeachment "attacks" on judicial independence?
• Appealability of SLAPP Fee Orders