CA Crim Appeals Lawyer here. You're a 180 orator, BUT you're fishing in the wrong pond at the appeals court. I'd hire you any day to give a jury trial closing argument or elect you as a politician to give a speech on the legislative floor... but an oral argument at an intermediate appellate court is a totally different ballgame. Your fundamental mistake is you didn't play the game correctly.
Justice Kim asked you two different questions, and you sat there looking at a very hittable bitch each time. Her questions weren't softballs, but they weren't curveballs either or gotcha questions to make you look bad either.
One question was about preemption and the other was about legislative roles. She gave you the fair opportunity to address genuine concerns she had -- which is much better than a dead bench or a justice trying to make your position look dumb -- and you didn't answer her questions at all and just said what you wanted to say.
The only purpose of oral argument is try to flip a judge who may be open to seeing the other side. They already have a draft opinion going into oral argument and they have to release an opinion within 90 days, so it's obviously an uphill battle to flip them.
But if they ask a question, you need to see that as your opportunity to try to flip them. Most of the time at OA, I'm arguing to a dead bench who doesn't even bother to humor me with questions. If they ask a question, you need to do everything you can do address that justice's concern.
Even if you didn't think of a good answer right away to her questions, you could have circled back to her questions later in your argument or on rebuttal.
Also, the very end of your rebuttal -- "we're not asking for 6 or 7 figures, just 15k" -- would be been perfectly delivered as a jury trial closing argument, but it missed the mark here. These justices are technocrats, and this argument wouldn't have appealed to them even if you're 100% right. They're looking to affirm judgments in unpublished opinions on the simplest grounds possible. They're not looking to legislate from the bench or make groundbreaking law or get into policy shit. They're just looking to keep a low profile and not get reversed. They don't give an f about your policy and fairness arguments.
All this being said, I know nothing about your case and the relevant law, and I take it you have the much harder statutory argument and that you probably did the best you can with it. Also, nothing you said in the oral argument probably would have made a lick of difference because the case was already decided. But at the appeals court, your focus needs to be on technical legal arguments and not on jury trial theatrics.
Date: October 29th, 2026 10:17 AM Author: chandler (retired)
TY brother this is scholarship. I 100% used lines to try to garner emotion in my favor which is a jury trial tactic that probably has zero effect on these judges. Judge Kim did come from the PI courts relatively recently and she was silent during the other cases.
The third district ruled against our side in a very similar argument recently, and this district did as well (but a different division) in an unpublished opinion. I don’t think it’s a winner but I do think the case I mentioned repeatedly is our best argument in our favor
The most important thing is that you impressed your XO bros. I'm probably the only poaster on here who noticed these flaws.
I'll reiterate that there's probably not a single thing you could have said or done either way at the OA that would have mattered one bit.
For me, keeping this in mind really helps take the pressure off at OA.
You're surely fucked if there are 2 recent bad cases. The unpublished case is just as good as published. The clerks can see the case and C&P from it and be influenced by it. It's total fraud. Shitty unpublished decisions make law.
Date: October 28th, 2026 11:09 PM Author: '''''''"'''""'
its not the weight that's a problem, you look really hung over as seen from your puffiness and glazed eyes and you look like your liver is going to give out and you're going to die tomorrow
Date: October 28th, 2026 11:30 PM Author: richard clock
opposing counsel comes off as smug and like the old xo meme about the young lawyer wanting to change the world for the good then defending egregious environmental violations
Date: October 28th, 2026 11:44 PM Author: chandler (retired)
The girl next to me is my best employee and she is incredibly 180. She wanted to come so I asked her to drive me.
My opponent is a she/them on socials but was very kind throughout the case. Probably too nice of a human to be defending corporations against injured victims
but why would you poast it knowing xo is gonna tear you apart? idk, i closed it after you stammered through the first sentence but the other replies indicate you did well overall, maybe i jumped to conclusions
Date: October 29th, 2026 12:00 AM Author: chandler (retired)
I’m trying to create content, get advice and actual criticism as well. Everyone else in the world will just say you did great, only here will your FRIENDS actually give you advice
Date: October 29th, 2026 10:15 AM Author: Fucking Fuckface
One of the few things worse than talking to other lawyers is presenting to a pompous judge in his court. Don't know how you do it, but this is one of the only kinds of legal representation that society actually needs