Justice Kagan has more words about the emergency docket, aka shadow docket. This one is about the 9th Circuit panel injunction of California’s law requiring school officials not to share with parents when their children present as trans. The Supreme Court keeps the injunction in effect.

And on the fee award front, big firms don’t automatically get a lodestar boost.

Plus, a debrief from oral argument in the Scientology AI sanctions case—where the court said nothing about the sanctions at all.

• The shadow docket is now a routine appellate strategy: Mirabelli v. Bonta saw the U.S. Supreme Court reverse a Ninth Circuit stay on an emergency application, reinstating an injunction protecting parental notification rights on substantive due process grounds—despite the majority's stated skepticism of such claims post-Dobbs. Justice Kagan's dissent warned that the Court is bypassing the normal appellate process and deciding cases before en banc review, signaling a procedural shift practitioners are already exploiting.
• AI cover-ups carry career-ending stakes: In Kjoller v. Superior Court, the California Supreme Court ordered a referee investigation after a prosecutor fabricated eight case citations, then called it "scrivener's error." The lesson is blunt—own the mistake immediately, or face bar referrals and public sanctions modeled on U.S. v. Hayes, where notice went to every judge in the district and every state bar where the attorney held a license.
• Firm size doesn't cap your fees: In LA International Corp. v. Prestige Brands, the Ninth Circuit vacated a fee award that discounted rates for a four-lawyer firm, holding that "brilliance at the bar is not measured by the number of associates a lawyer commands." Skill, experience, and reputation control the lodestar—not letterhead.
• Oral argument silence in the Scientology AI case: Despite an Order to Show Cause for sanctions over AI-generated citations, the Second District panel never raised the issue during argument, focusing only on anti-SLAPP merits while the sanctioned attorney sat in the gallery with separate counsel at the podium.
• Legislative response is coming: A California Senate bill imposing heightened duties of care for AI use by attorneys is advancing with no opposition, suggesting statutory guardrails are imminent.

Three paradoxes feature in this episode:

Paradox 1: You must disclose a bankruptcy stay to the Court of Appeal. What about a bankruptcy that does not create a stay?

Answer: Yes, the disclose-bk-stay rule also means disclose a bk non-stay.

Paradox 2: Deadbeat dad owes $500k. He settles and agrees to pay $250k. How much does he owe?

Answer: Still $500k.

Paradox 3: District court 1 rules AI work product is protected because, among other things, no court has ruled otherwise.

District court 2 then rules otherwise.

Key points:

• Local rules mean what they say: The First District's Local Rule 21 requires "prompt" notice of any bankruptcy that could cause a stay—not just bankruptcies you've confirmed do trigger one. Counsel must explain whether the stay applies, not decide unilaterally that it doesn't and stay silent.
• No stay for debtor-initiated lawsuits: The automatic bankruptcy stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1) does not apply to actions brought by the debtor itself. Debtors need to marshal assets through litigation; they don't need protection from their own lawsuits.
• Counsel pled ignorance of Local Rule 21 and reliance on "faulty advice" from bankruptcy counsel—neither excuse worked.
• Courts view violations of notice requirements as a waste of limited judicial time, particularly when discovery occurs days before oral argument.
• Even without sanctions, the published admonishment serves as a lasting professional rebuke.
• The broader ethical duty: appellate lawyers must notify courts of any occurrence that could cause the court to lose or question its jurisdiction.

In Part 2 of our conversation with Michael Shipley, Tim and Jeff dig into the real-world fallout of California's no-horizontal-stare-decisis rule — and the structural fix Shipley has been developing to address it.

Shipley walks Tim and Jeff through his proposed "mini-en banc" transfer mechanism — a way for the California Supreme Court to empower a designated Court of Appeal panel to issue statewide-binding precedent on conflicting issues without consuming the Supreme Court's own docket. No constitutional amendment required. The fix is already structurally available. The question is whether anyone has the will to use it.

Key points:

• The "lonesome judge" problem is worse than it sounds: Under Auto Equity, trial judges caught between conflicting Court of Appeal decisions must predict which rule the California Supreme Court would adopt—effectively playing temporary Supreme Court justice on procedural disputes that may never get high court attention. The result: uncertainty, inconsistent rulings, and frustrated trial judges who just want clear precedent to follow.
• The anti-SLAPP mixed-cause-of-action split took over a decade to resolve: Before Baral, California Courts of Appeal were hopelessly divided on whether a defendant could bring an anti-SLAPP motion targeting individual claims within a mixed cause of action. The split persisted for years.
• Forum shopping is a risk—but more at the trial court level: There is a theoretical opportunity to forum-shop between appellate districts, but if shopping actually happens, it’s probably more at the “lonesome trial judge” level.
• Shipley's fix: a "mini-en banc" transfer procedure: The California Supreme Court would transfer cases back to a designated Court of Appeal panel with authority to disapprove prior conflicting decisions and issue a statewide-binding opinion. The decision would remain subject to Supreme Court review, but would resolve persistent splits on procedural issues without consuming Supreme Court resources.
• Constitutional constraints make true en banc review impossible: California's Constitution requires three-justice panels—no more, no less.
• Implementation doesn't require constitutional amendment: The Supreme Court could adopt this procedure unilaterally as a matter of prudence, though a Judicial Council rule would provide helpful procedural uniformity.

Listen now to understand a concrete reform proposal that could bring much-needed certainty to California's appellate system—and learn how you can support it.