John Snow, Director of Legal and Trial Training at the Los Angeles City Attorney's Office and author of Rules to Speak By (Carolina Academic Press, 2026), joins Tim Kowal and Jeff Lewis to discuss what it actually takes to be an effective oral advocate. Snow has tried more than 30 cases to completion in state and federal court and spent years designing trial training programs for lawyers at the LA City Attorney's Office, experience that grounds every practical lesson in the book.

Snow argues that oral advocacy is a rule-governed discipline, not a natural talent, and that the lawyers who appear effortless have simply practiced more than anyone realizes. Drawing on cognitive psychology research alongside transcripts from high-profile trials, he explains how audiences absorb spoken argument and how advocates routinely lose their audience without knowing it. He walks through specific techniques, including the one-fact-per-question rule on cross-examination, slide design that functions like a billboard rather than a script, and how to respond to hostile bench questions without hedging or losing credibility. He also addresses how trial conduct shapes the appellate record, making clear that a single, well-placed sentence at trial can preserve an issue for review.

Drawing on cognitive psychology research and transcripts from high-profile trials, he explains how audiences absorb spoken argument—and how advocates routinely lose their audience without knowing it.

We discuss:

• The one-fact-per-question rule on cross-examination—otherwise you’ll lose the witness, and the jury.
• Designing PowerPoint slides? Think billboards, not scripts
• How to respond to hostile bench questions without hedging or losing credibility.
• The cognitive psychology principles behind Snow's ten rules for oral advocacy
• Cross-examination technique and how precise phrasing controls witness responses
• Handling hostile questions from an appellate panel without losing confidence

What is the single oral advocacy habit you have found hardest to break, even after years in the courtroom?

Drawing on 20 years observing attorney behavior, Hon. Stuart M. Rice (ret.) now at JAMS, speaks freely. This episode is a rare candid debrief from the other side of the bench.

Key topics:

• What incivility actually costs you in court: Judge Rice served on the statewide civility task force and watched uncivil conduct for two decades. His diagnosis: it's not the screamer at deposition—it's the subtler patterns that quietly erode a lawyer's credibility with the bench.
• The task force secured a new oath provision requiring lawyers admitted since 2014 to attest to treating others with "dignity, respect, and courtesy"—but how much does an oath really change behavior?
• Show up in person—especially when you can lose: Remote appearances transformed California courtrooms post-COVID, and not for the better. Judge Rice's rule from the bench: if you can win or lose at a hearing, you will do better work in the room.
• And that's true in mediation, too.
• Complex mediation is a strategy problem, not just a settlement problem: As the judge who presided over all of the 2025 Palisades Fire consolidated cases and California's Johnson & Johnson ovarian cancer litigation, Judge Rice brings a systems view to large multi-plaintiff matters. He recently wrote in the Daily Journal on what it takes to succeed in complex mediations—and his JAMS practice is built around exactly these cases.
• Pupillage groups and the civility dividend: As president of the Benjamin Aranda III Inn of Court, Judge Rice restructured pupillage groups to require two new members per group who were law students or lawyers within five years of practice—successfully shifting the Inn's demographics and, he argues, its culture.
• The Adam Z. Rice Memorial Scholarship: Judge Rice is in his fourth consecutive year as president of the California Judges Foundation, which funds needs-based scholarships for law students from disadvantaged backgrounds. The scholarship is named for his late son. This year's award included an offer of free mentoring until the recipient's first legal job. Find it by searching "Adam Rice Memorial Scholarship" or visiting caljudges.org.

Your next status conference is closer than you think. Hit play before it gets here—this episode will change how you read the room.

Does your office have a blank 170.6 form ready to go for a certain judge? Stop doing that. A 170.6 peremptory challenge is no longer automatic: the California Supreme Court now authorizes courts to look behind your 170.6. The touchstone is whether your 170.6 is based on a genuine belief of prejudice—or mere grievance.

But first, a $3 million sanctions order against Quinn Emanuel in a big‑pharma advertising case, where an expert obtained key clinical data before it was disclosed and the firm failed to correct the record. The Northern District of California called out firm culture, and ordering the attorneys to prepare and lead an eight‑hour ethics MCLE.

• How a three‑million‑dollar sanctions order against Quinn Emanuel grew out of failures to correct prior statements about expert discovery.
• The court’s criticism of a “culture of bad ethics decisions” and the requirement for a bespoke eight‑hour ethics course.
• The facts in J.O. v. Superior Court, including 325 peremptory challenges aimed at removing a single judge from conservatorship matters.
• The new three‑step framework for challenging bad‑faith, blanket 170.6 practices and what counts as a prima facie showing.
• Strategic implications for lawyers who rely on peremptory challenges in small counties and specialized calendars.

What is your firm’s 170.6 practice like? Expect any changes after J.O.?