Industry Insight

Mark Cuban doesn’t mince words. When I asked him for advice for my law students at UConn Law School, his response was brutally simple: “Become intimate with all the LLMs. Learn what they can and can’t do. Same with agentic AI.” He’s right. And most lawyers are completely unprepared for what’s coming. The legal profession spent the last century perfecting human processes. We created elaborate systems for document review, legal research, contract drafting, and case management. We built pyramids of associates doing manual work that partners would review. We charged by the hour for tasks that should take minutes. Now Cuban points to the obvious truth: all those processes are dead weight. The firms that survive will be the ones that eliminate them entirely through automation. The Process Problem Is Killing Legal Practice Law firms are process factories. Junior associates spend 2,000 hours a year on document review. Partners waste days editing briefs that could be generated in seconds. Paralegals manage filing systems that should be automated. Clients pay $500 an hour for work that adds no real value. Cuban nails it: “So much of law is spent on processes.” These processes exist because we’ve always done them, not because they need to exist. They’re the legal equivalent of using horses when cars are available. Every hour spent on process is an hour stolen from actual legal thinking and strategy. The dirty secret is that most legal work isn’t legal work at all. It’s information processing, pattern matching, and document generation. These are exactly the tasks that LLMs excel at. A properly configured AI can review contracts faster than any human, spot issues more consistently, and generate first drafts that need minimal editing. Yet most firms still have associates doing this work manually, billing clients’ premium rates for commodity tasks. This isn’t just inefficient. It’s malpractice. When better tools exist and lawyers refuse to use them, they’re failing their duty to serve clients effectively. The profession’s resistance to automation isn’t principled; it’s protectionist. We’re protecting outdated business models at the expense of access to justice. Law Firms Are Having the Wrong Debate Here’s what kills me: Right now, law firm management committees are sitting in conference rooms debating whether to allow ChatGPT or which legal AI vendor to select. They’re comparing Cocounsel to Harvey to Lexis+ AI. They’re drafting policies about acceptable use. They’re forming committees to study the issue. They’re completely missing the plot. This isn’t a procurement decision. It’s not about picking the right product or crafting the perfect policy. It’s about fundamentally rewiring how lawyers think and work. While firms debate which walled garden to buy into, their competitors are teaching lawyers to be AI-native practitioners who can work with any tool that emerges. The vendors selling “legal-specific AI” are laughing all the way to the bank. They’re charging firms tens of thousands per month for what amounts to GPT-5 with a legal wrapper. These firms think they’re buying safety and specialization. What they’re actually buying is limitation and dependency. Meanwhile, lawyers who know how to work directly with Claude or GPT-5 are running circles around them, switching between models based on the task, combining tools for complex workflows. The real competitive advantage isn’t having the “right” AI tool. It’s having lawyers who understand AI deeply enough to use any tool effectively. The New Core Competency: AI Fluency Cuban’s advice cuts through the noise: become intimate with LLMs. Not familiar. Not competent. Intimate. This means understanding their capabilities at a granular level. Knowing when Claude outperforms GPT-5 for legal analysis. Understanding how to chain prompts for complex reasoning. Recognizing when an AI hallucinates versus when it surfaces genuine insights. Most lawyers treat AI like a search engine. They ask basic questions, get basic answers, and declare the technology overhyped. They’re using Formula One race cars to drive to the grocery store. The lawyers who will dominate the next decade are those who understand these tools deeply enough to push them to their limits. This isn’t about learning to code. It’s about learning to think in ways machines can execute. It means breaking complex legal problems into discrete, solvable components. It means understanding how to validate AI output and when to trust automated systems. It means knowing which tasks to delegate to machines and which require human judgment. The skill hierarchy in law is inverting. Technical excellence used to mean mastering case law and procedure. Now it means orchestrating AI systems to handle routine work while you focus on strategy and client relationships. The lawyers who can make machines do their bidding will outcompete those who can’t by orders of magnitude. It’s About Learning, Not Buying The firms getting this right aren’t shopping for solutions. They’re building learning cultures. They’re running prompt engineering workshops. They’re creating internal labs where lawyers experiment with different models. They’re rewarding lawyers who find new ways to automate routine tasks. One partner I know gave her entire team Claude and ChatGPT accounts and told them to break things. No policies, no restrictions, just pure experimentation. Within a month, they’d automated 40% of their document review process. Within three months, they were generating first drafts of briefs that needed minimal editing. They didn’t buy a legal AI product. They learned how to think with machines. This is what Cuban means by becoming “intimate” with LLMs. It’s not about mastering a single tool. It’s about developing an intuition for how these systems think, what they can do, and how to push them beyond their obvious applications. It’s about learning the meta-skill of AI collaboration. The firms still debating policies are already obsolete. While they worry about risk and compliance, their clients are using ChatGPT themselves and wondering why they’re paying lawyers to do work that machines can handle. The market won’t wait for the legal profession to get comfortable with AI. It will simply route around firms that refuse to adapt. Building the Future Means Destroying the Present Cuban’s most provocative point is his call to “invent new approaches.” He’s not talking about incremental improvement. He’s talking about burning down existing models and building something fundamentally different. Consider legal research. The traditional approach involves hours in databases, reading cases, synthesizing holdings. The AI approach? Feed a well-crafted prompt to Claude or GPT-5, get a comprehensive analysis in seconds, then spend your time validating and refining. The entire research process collapses from days to hours. Or take contract drafting. Instead of starting from templates and manually customizing clauses, AI-fluent lawyers generate entire agreements from natural language specifications. They iterate through versions in real-time during negotiations. What took weeks now takes hours. These aren’t efficiency gains. They’re paradigm shifts. And they’re happening whether the legal establishment likes it or not. The firms clinging to traditional processes will be decimated by competitors who embrace automation. The choice isn’t whether to adopt AI but whether to lead or follow. The Path Forward Is Clear Cuban’s advice is a roadmap, but most firms are treating it like a shopping list. Stop looking for the perfect AI product. Start building AI-native lawyers. First, master the tools. Not a tool. The tools. Spend serious time with Claude, GPT-5, Gemini, and emerging platforms. Learn their strengths, weaknesses, and quirks. Understand how to prompt effectively, validate outputs, and chain operations for complex tasks. Make this part of professional development, not a side project. Second, create learning environments. Give lawyers time and space to experiment. Reward failure and breakthrough equally. Share discoveries across teams. Build internal knowledge bases of effective prompts and workflows. Make AI fluency as important as legal knowledge in performance reviews. Third, identify processes to eliminate. Every manual task in your practice is a target for automation. Document review, legal research, contract analysis, brief writing, client communications. Map these processes, then systematically replace them with AI workflows. Fourth, invent new service models. When routine work takes minutes instead of hours, billing structures must change. Value-based pricing, subscription models, and outcome-based fees will replace the billable hour. Firms that figure this out first will capture massive market share. The legal profession stands at an inflection point. Cuban sees it clearly: the future belongs to those who can command machines to do their bidding. The rest will be left behind, clinging to processes that no longer need to exist, charging for work that machines do better. The lawyers who get it: They’re not learning to be traditional lawyers. They’re learning to be legal engineers, process eliminators, and AI orchestrators. They’re not asking which legal AI product to use. They’re learning to use them all, to think with machines, to see possibilities where others see threats. They’re following Cuban’s advice to the letter. The question for practicing lawyers is simple: Will you join them, or will you be replaced by them? Cuban has shown you the path. Stop shopping for solutions and start learning. The only thing left is to walk it. 

Gen Z lawyers—born between 1997 and 2012—are stepping into the profession with expectations that are rewriting the rules of law firm life. They want flexible schedules, meaningful mental health support, and technology that reduces busywork instead of creating it. They ask direct questions about lawyer work-life balance and often choose smaller firms with strong cultures over BigLaw positions. With the oldest Gen Z lawyers now in their late 20s, this generation comprises nearly 30% of the global population, and their influence on the legal industry is already reshaping traditional practices. For firms, this means culture, technology, and growth opportunities will increasingly determine who wins the talent war in the years ahead. In this post, we’ll explore what matters most to Gen Z lawyers, how they’re redefining career success, and what firms can do to stay competitive. Who Are Gen Z Lawyers? Gen Z attorneys are typically aged 25 to 28 as they enter the legal profession, representing the oldest members of a generation born between 1997 and 2012. As digital natives who grew up with smartphones, social media, and instant access to information, they think, learn, and work differently than previous generations. They expect genuine work-life balance, mental-health support, and modern legal technology that helps them work smarter. And they won’t hesitate to leave firms that don’t offer the right culture, flexibility, or growth opportunities. What Sets Gen Z Lawyers Apart? Understanding what drives Gen Z as lawyers requires looking beyond surface-level preferences to their core values and expectations. Here’s what firms need to understand about this generation. They expect technology to help them work smarter. Legal practice management systems and mobile apps that provide effortless access to case and client information from anywhere are now expectations for these digital natives. They reject endless email chains, don’t understand why paper-based documents still exist, and prefer streamlined communication, seeking legal workflow automation that eliminates manual processes. Purpose matters more than prestige. Traditional markers like BigLaw names and corner offices carry less weight than meaningful work. Deloitte’s latest Global Gen Z and Millennial Survey found that 89% consider a sense of purpose essential to job satisfaction and well-being. Many will even accept lower pay for work that aligns with their values and offers a stronger sense of long-term career fulfillment. Boundaries aren’t negotiable. These young lawyers set clear limits on their availability because they’ve witnessed the burnout that comes without them. They deliver high-quality work during business hours while protecting personal time so they can recharge and stay effective long-term. They need feedback to grow. Having grown up with instant feedback in every other area of life, they expect the same at work. They want regular check-ins, clear expectations, and immediate recognition for good work. This constant feedback loop accelerates their development and helps firms spot and fix issues early on. More than generational quirks, these are shifts in workplace expectations that affect law firms every day. Firms that embrace these expectations will attract and retain top talent, while those that ignore them risk losing the lawyers who will define the next decade of practice. Gen Z Expectations vs. Traditional Legal Norms The tension between old and new approaches creates daily friction for legal professionals. In many BigLaw firms, you’ll often witness a familiar scene: seasoned partners who believe associates need to “pay their dues” working alongside 26-year-olds who are adamant the system needs to change. It’s a clash between two completely different ways of thinking about legal work. Here’s where the expectations of Gen Z lawyers collide with traditional legal norms: Billable hours vs. quality of output. Gen Z lawyers grew up in a world where technology improves efficiency, so a compensation model that’s based purely on time spent feels backward to them. Meanwhile, many partners who built successful careers under the billable hour model consider it indispensable to law firm profitability. Hierarchy vs. collaboration. Traditional firms operate on strict chains of command where junior associates wait years before their opinions carry weight. Gen Z lawyers, by contrast, are accustomed to flat organizational structures and open communication. When they spot inefficiencies or have innovative ideas, they expect to be heard. Linear careers vs. flexible paths. The traditional model assumes everyone wants to make partner. But Gen Z lawyers often have more fluid career goals. Remarkably, only 6% say their primary career goal is reaching senior leadership. Some plan to go in-house after gaining experience. Others want to start their own practices or take sabbaticals for personal projects. Face time vs. results. Partners who came up in an era where being seen in the office equaled dedication now manage associates who can work effectively from anywhere. Gen Z lawyers judge performance based on output and results, not hours logged at a desk. These differences create natural tension, but they also raise important questions about how the legal profession operates. Firms that thoughtfully examine whether current practices serve everyone well—while preserving what works about traditional practice—will gain an edge in attracting and retaining exceptional talent. Law Firm Challenges In Attracting and Retaining Gen Z Firms face significant challenges in retaining emerging Gen Zs, and these problems stem from fundamental misunderstandings about what young lawyers actually need. With up to 50% of Gen Z workers reportedly disengaged from their jobs, law firms can’t afford to ignore these barriers. Treating Basics Like Perks One of the most significant disconnects occurs when firms continue to treat flexibility and work-life balance as optional perks instead of basic requirements. Gen Z lawyers expect the ability to work from home a few days a week, set their own schedules when possible, and manage personal commitments independently. When firms present these as “extra” benefits, it sends the message that they don’t truly understand how legal work can be done effectively today. Korn Ferry research even shows that 40% of Gen Z associates begin job searching within two years, often citing culture and flexibility concerns. Mentorship That Doesn’t Actually Mentor Gen Z wants real guidance and structured professional development, not just someone who assigns work and disappears. They expect mentors who understand what new lawyers need to succeed and help them get there. The traditional “figure it out yourself” approach leaves them feeling abandoned and undervalued. The numbers reveal this gap clearly. According to Deloitte, 50% of Gen Zs want managers who teach and mentor them, but only 36% say this actually happens. That disconnect between expectation and reality drives many talented young lawyers to look for opportunities elsewhere. Technology That Works Against Them Outdated systems frustrate young lawyers daily in ways that directly impact their ability to do good work. When they have to use three different platforms to complete one task, or when basic processes take hours instead of minutes, they start questioning whether the firm is serious about efficiency. Over time, these tech frustrations can chip away at engagement, productivity, and even loyalty. Career Paths That Assume Everyone Wants The Same Thing The traditional 8-10-year partnership track can feel constraining for lawyers who might want to pivot, take a sabbatical, or explore completely different goals. Gen Z expects firms to offer flexibility and support for diverse career paths, rather than funneling everyone into a one-size-fits-all trajectory. Recommendations: How Law Firms Can Adapt Smart firms are already making changes that reflect the preferences of Gen Z lawyers. By adopting the following six strategies, your firm can create a workplace that attracts, retains, and empowers talent at every level. Make flexibility the default. Gen Z lawyers value the ability to work where and when they can be most productive. Instead of treating remote work or flexible schedules as special privileges, make them standard practice. Focus on results and outcomes rather than hours logged or physical presence. Cloud-based practice management platforms make this possible, letting teams collaborate seamlessly whether they’re in the office, at home, or in court. Build mentorship programs that develop talent. Gen Z wants legal mentors who actively guide them, teach practical skills, and sponsor their growth. Provide mentors with dedicated time and opportunities for meaningful interaction. Beyond mentorship, Gen Z lawyers benefit from structured learning opportunities and ongoing legal education that keeps pace with their career growth. Modernize your tech stack. Outdated systems slow down work and create frustration. Invest in integrated technology that simplifies workflows instead of complicating them. The top legal software consolidates case management, time tracking, billing, and client communication into one centralized place. The result? Less time wrestling with systems and more time practicing law effectively—a win for associates and partners alike. Transform DEI from policy to practice. Gen Z can spot performative diversity a mile away. Inclusive policies alone aren’t enough. They need to be reflected in who’s hired, promoted, and placed in leadership. Show authentic commitment through measurable actions, like diverse leadership pipelines, fair promotion practices, and active accountability. When lawyers see real representation and inclusion in action, it builds trust, engagement, and a stronger sense of belonging. Measure what matters. Billable hours alone don’t capture what makes a lawyer successful. Reward lawyers who improve processes, take smarter approaches, or deliver exceptional results, not just those who work the longest hours. Modern legal technology makes this easy by supporting a wide range of alternative billing arrangements, like flat fees or subscription-based billing options. Give them meaningful work from day one. Young lawyers don’t want to spend years on endless document review or routine research. Instead, offer substantive projects, real client interaction, and genuine responsibility early on. With legal AI increasingly automating routine tasks traditionally assigned to junior staff, firms can now offer more substantive work to new associates from the beginning. Research and Surveys of Gen Z Voices Sometimes, the best way to understand a generation is to hear from them directly. Recent research and surveys reveal telling insights about what Gen Z lawyers want and what’s driving them away from traditional firms. 52% of Gen Z associates are willing to trade part of their salary for reduced billable hours, with women showing stronger preferences for this trade-off. 39% of Gen Z associates disagree or strongly disagree that associates at their firm were racially diverse. More than one in four junior associates disagreed or strongly disagreed that their firms prioritize pro bono work (27%) or value social justice and responsibility (27%). 68% of young lawyers experience stress and anxiety due to student loan debt, with 67% feeling financial stress overall. 74% of Gen Z believe generative AI will impact the way they work within the next year. 6% of Gen Zs say their primary career goal is to reach a senior leadership position. Of the 70% of Gen Z who said they would pursue employment at a law firm, just 39% said they would like to work for an Am Law 200 firm. As much as 50% of Gen Z workers are reportedly disengaged from their jobs. The Final Word On Gen Z Lawyers Gen Z lawyers are embracing legal tech to work smarter, championing flexible and forward-thinking business models, and reimagining the way they connect with colleagues and clients. As they move into leadership roles over the coming decade, their values will reshape everything from firm culture to client service delivery models. The firms that thrive will be those that embrace integrated practice management technology and provide the modern legal tools that help lawyers work more effectively. More importantly, they’ll recognize that Gen Z’s approach isn’t simply different. It can also be better, creating more sustainable, efficient, and fulfilling legal careers for everyone. 

In a post two years ago this month Here We Go All Over Again… or Not, I posed a series of questions about what might happen to the legal world in this era of Generative AI. While the takeover of the industry by computers that some feared did not move at warp speed, the direction of AI advance as it relates to the law is clear—it will increasingly play a role in the business and practice of law and, likely within a relatively short time, change dramatically the day-to-day activities of lawyers. With those changes will come fundamental shifts in what it will means be—and to become—a successful lawyer. Another corollary of this change will likely be a change in the primary criterion for a successful firm—aggregation and maintenance of the right talent base for the future. Put differently, the successful (and potentially the only surviving) law firms will be those who can play and win the talent game. Talent, not AI or other factors, will be the primary differentiator for firms of the future. Sophisticated AI as part of the practice of law will be available to all and will become a component of “table stakes” within a few years. As a necessity, AI adoption becomes primarily a capital question, as well as a question of firm structure and funding, including acceleration of the industry entrée of external (PE, VC, etc.) capital. But the fundamental question remains—what will differentiate firms when core tools of the legal practice are available to everyone? Talent will be the answer, making the focus on all aspects of talent management critical to future success. Over the past few years, when we’ve asked Managing Partners about their most important challenges, the common topics have included “the associates” and a general concern around the eroding productivity of their lawyer teams generally. The productivity issues stem from many causes, and we’ve written about them in various other recent blogs, but even successfully addressing those concerns does not ultimately guarantee your firm the talent it needs to succeed in the future. While overcoming the cultural and other factors underlying these challenges will be a necessary factor in success, it won’t be a sufficient one. What else will firms need to do on the talent front? First and foremost, firms individually, and perhaps the industry broadly, will need to deeply rethink both what it will mean to be a future successful partner, and perhaps more importantly, how to develop one. The most successful partners today are those to whom the clients will turn in their most challenging times. The trusted advisors, and the true strategic partners when it comes to dealing with important challenges—whether in the courtroom or the deal room—will be crucial. But as AI increasingly supplants much of the work currently done by younger lawyers, and moves into assisting in strategic decision making and other components of the practice, how will firms create the next generation of truly valuable partners? Yes, we will likely need fewer younger lawyers to do relatively routine work (and fewer older lawyers who do routine work too), but we will still need a large—and likely larger than today—number of highly skilled and trusted lawyers upon whom the clients confer their trust. A different development model will be needed to assure this supply, which may require two additional changes: a rethinking of the typical legal pricing model, and a new level of cooperation with the clients. That development model itself will have a different structure. Just as today the share of total partners who are truly the trusted and strategic partners of the client are a small-ish subset of the total partners in most firms, likewise the share of total new hires the firm can invest enough in to eventually get them to that level will be smaller than the total group of new lawyer hires every year. But proper selection, and long-term retention of those new hires will be crucial. Second, the overall leverage structure of many firms will need to change. In the short run, and reflecting the point in the paragraph above, firms might consider building two entirely different groups of associates—one group ready and able to become the next true group of strategic owners, willing to put in the hours it takes to build a truly successful career and another group who may not have the talent or desire to be those future leaders but who can contribute to the firm’s current success while handling the remaining routine work and much of the more basic work that is still needed in the firm. In a sense, the latter group becomes a type of “super paralegal” or new paraprofessional group with its own career path, while the first becomes a smaller, but more intense associate class. The second group might resemble an enhanced “staff attorney” program but provide a separate lifetime job category with its own benefits and rewards. The first group will need a different compensation model from today to protect the firm from undesired losses and will become an area for intense investment by the firms. As a corollary to the restructuring of associate life, firms will need to think carefully about what they are looking for in the new lawyers in whom they plan to make significant investments. Most firms have come to the realization that brainpower alone—whether reflected in LSAT scores, law school rankings or your place within your graduating class—is insufficient to assure career success. It takes more than drive, empathy, social skills, and other key traits to rise to the top and gain the trust of clients. These associates will also need a strong business sense, and perhaps psychological traits more readily found in the business world than the legal world. Most firms have yet to discover how to systematically identify and attract such candidates, and when they do get them fortuitously, are often hard pressed to keep them. Third, firms will need to find ways to better capture the value of the senior talent where a significant portion of current law firm knowledge resides, while also doing a far better job of managing transition as lawyers approach retirement. Much of this challenge relates to compensation models and legacy overhead structures. It just doesn’t work in today’s law firm economic structures to have many senior people (intentionally) working part time, even though their potential contribution is significant. More than a few firms face capacity shortages for highly skilled work, while simultaneously struggling to train and develop the next generations. While many senior lawyers struggle, understandably, with the transition to retirement, better transition management programs, different overhead structures, and more flexible compensation design might help firms and lawyers manage much more fruitful and productive transitions. Finally, in addition to better managing the early and later parts of a lawyer’s career, firms will need to focus more intently on its middle. Retaining the key, well trained mid-career star lawyers who manage the bulk of the firm’s work (and do most of the hands-on training of younger talent) is critical to assuring the quality and success of the firm one and two decades from now. While individual firms obviously have radically different experiences, the median partner retention rate in the AM Law 100 firms was roughly 90% for the period 2020-2023[1]. Even at this reasonably strong retention rate, a firm loses roughly half its partners every six years, and many firms have far worse retention rates. Given this challenge, most lateral hiring strategies do little to build a law firm—most are working as hard as they can to stay in the same place, with new hires replacing departures and retirements. To build a stronger, deeper firm, you must both hire and retain people for the long term. Each firm’s talent base is unique, but not all are created equal. To the extent a firm’s talent is primarily just capable of efficient processing of relatively routine legal work it may find itself a few years from now the victim of a rapidly accelerating AI driven revolution in the industry. Such firms will likely be either much less profitable or potentially cease to exist. But to the extent the firm has a talent base capable of gaining and keeping client’s trust for their business or for key aspects of important work, those firms will remain relevant to the clients, and profitable to their owners. Talent is the one component of the successful firm that can’t be easily duplicated simply by spending money. You must build the right culture, select the right people, build the right structures around them, pay them appropriately, create opportunities for growth, and build reasons for them to stay with the firm long term. It’s not easy, and the outcomes will fall along a spectrum of success. But the firms who figure out how to win the talent game will ultimately be the winners of the future. Which brings us full circle. The next time your firm sets out to do its “strategic plan”, think carefully about what you are really doing. A strategy that doesn’t include a serious, long term talent focus—not just a “plan” to “grow out office in X city through lateral hiring”—is not a strategy that can meet the future our industry faces. Talent is the final strategic frontier, and those that wade boldly into its challenges will have the best shots at being winners of the future. [1] “Which AM Law 100 firms have been retaining their lateral Partner hires?”, Pirical, February 12, 2024, pirical.com/data-insights/amlaw100-partner-retention 

CALIFORNIA COURT OF APPEAL Employment CRST Expedited, Inc. v. Super. Ct. (2025) _ Cal.App.5th _, 2025 WL 1874891: The Court of Appeal denied the employer defendant’s petition for writ of mandate seeking to overturn the trial court’s order denying defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings in plaintiff’s PAGA action alleging no individual claims, but only claims on behalf of other employees. The issue was whether Labor Code section 2699 authorizes an aggrieved employee to bring a lawsuit that seeks to recover civil penalties imposed for Labor Code violations suffered only by other employees. After plaintiff dismissed his individual claims, because they had been ordered to arbitration, defendant moved for judgment on the pleadings arguing that plaintiff could not bring PAGA claims for violations suffered only by other employees. The Court of Appel denied the writ petition, concluding that a plaintiff may bring a PAGA action seeking the recovery of civil penalties (1) for the Labor Code violations suffered only by the employee, (2) for the Labor Code violations suffered only by other employees, or (3) both. (C.A. 5th, July 7, 2025.) Landlord-Tenant Eshagian v. Cepeda (2025) _ Cal.App.5th _, 2025 WL 1764252: The Court of Appeal transferred this case from the appellate division of the superior court to decide whether a tenant can appeal a judgment for possession in an unlawful detainer proceeding if the landlord has outstanding damages claims that have not been adjudicated. It concluded that a possession-only judgment is not appealable in this situation because it does not resolve all rights of the parties. However, given the uncertainty of the law on appealability at the time defendant filed his appeal, the Court of Appeal treated the appeal as a petition for writ of mandate to avoid any further delay. It concluded that the three-day notice to pay rent or quit served by plaintiff landlord, pursuant to section 1161(2) was invalid for failure to make clear by when and how defendant tenant had to pay the rent, and that defendant would lose possession of the premises if he did not timely cure the default. Plaintiff’s complaint incorporating the three-day notice therefore failed to state a cause of action for unlawful detainer and the Court of Appeal directed the trial court to vacate the judgment in favor of plaintiff and to enter a new judgment in favor of defendant. (C.A. 2nd, June 26, 2025.) Real Property Amundson et al. v. Catello (2025) _ Cal.App.5th _, 2025 WL 1563241: The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s interlocutory order identifying the owners of real property as cross-defendant Ruth Catello (Catello) and the estate of decedent Leslie J. Knoles (decedent) and ordering a partition by sale. Decedent had four surviving siblings. Catello and decedent originally acquired title to the real property as joint tenants. About one month before her death, decedent recorded a quitclaim deed that, if valid, severed the joint tenancy and created a tenancy in common with no right of survivorship. Catello and the siblings filed dueling petitions in the probate court. Those proceedings were not yet concluded when the Court of Appeal issued its decision. This appeal arose after Catello filed an action against two of the siblings to cancel the quitclaim deed and for quiet title to the real property, the siblings later filed a cross-claim seeking to partition the real property by sale, and the trial court entered its interlocutory judgment. The Court of Appeal reversed the interlocutory judgment because the siblings did not have standing to bring the partition action. Code of Civil Procedure section 872.210(a)(2) provides that a partition action may be commenced and maintained by an owner of an estate of inheritance in real property. The probate proceedings, however, had not yet determined whether the real property was a part of decedent’s estate. Because the party seeking partition must have clear title, the uncertainty of the outcome of the probate proceedings precluded the siblings from establishing the ownership interest required to bring a partition claim under section 872.210. (C.A. 4th, Decision after rehearing, June 3, 2025.) Torts Mitchell v. Hutchinson (2025) _ Cal.App.5th _, 2025 WL 1904317: The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s order granting defendants Gail B. Hutchinson and the Gail B. Hutchinson Trust’s (defendants) motion for summary judgment in plaintiffs’ action for personal injury and property damage arising from rocks or boulders rolling down a hill and onto the road. Plaintiff sued several defendants who owned adjacent real property. The trial court properly granted summary judgment. Defendants met their initial burden pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 437c subdivision (p)(2) of showing that plaintiffs could not prove the element of causation as to both of their causes of action. The burden then shifted to plaintiffs to show the existence of a triable issue of material fact as to (1) whether the rocks came from defendants’ property or, alternatively, (2) whether defendants and the other owners of the adjacent hillside acted negligently in maintaining their slopes such that the burden of proof on the issue of causation would shift to defendants at trial under Summers v. Tice (1948) 33 Cal.2d 80. Because plaintiffs did neither, defendants were entitled to summary judgment. (C.A. 4th, filed June 11, 2025, published July 10, 2025.) n

If you’re a judge reading this, take a breath. The goal here isn’t to paint you as the problem. Quite the opposite. The best judges—the ones who believe in the rule of law, who sweat the details and carry the weight of their decisions—are the very reason this question deserves serious thought. Could a well-trained AI, with full access to case law, statutes, and party filings, deliver more consistent, more affordable, and more impartial trial-level decisions? Could it even outperform us? Let’s test the idea—not out of disrespect for the bench, but out of respect for justice itself. A System Rooted in Humanity—For Better and Worse Our trial courts were built around human judgment. That made sense when typewriters ruled and precedent lived in books. But in a world of real-time language models and digital archives of every decision ever issued, we must ask: is tradition alone a good enough reason to keep relying on one person’s memory, mood, and mindset to decide the most important matters in people’s lives? And more provocatively: how much longer can we pretend that “human discretion” is inherently better than structured logic? The Case for AI in the Trial Courts It’s cheaper. Much cheaper. Judges are well-paid—and they should be, given the gravity of their role. But with salaries north of $150,000 annually (not including staff, clerks, or pension obligations), trial courts are expensive to operate. An AI model capable of evaluating briefs, applying precedent, and issuing draft opinions could cost as little as $15–$50 per month. That’s not an argument to devalue human labor—it’s a fiscal reality that deserves attention in an era of strained public budgets. AI has infinite recall. When asked to synthesize multiple cases and statutory provisions, a judge may lean on memory, experience, or a clerk’s memo. An AI, however, doesn’t forget. Give it full access to the Westlaw archive, or just upload the controlling authorities—and it can trace doctrinal threads with surgical precision. It’s not that AI is smarter than a judge. It’s that it doesn’t tire, doesn’t forget, and doesn’t rely on gut instinct. No more bias. No more guesswork. Even the most conscientious judges can’t fully escape implicit bias. Whether it’s fatigue, frustration, or unconscious favoritism, human decisions are colored by context. In some trial courts—particularly family law—discretion is so vast that outcomes can shift dramatically depending on who’s presiding. As any lawyer for child custody appeals knows, the abuse of discretion standard makes reversals exceedingly rare. That discretion, for better or worse, can hide all manner of biases behind legally sufficient reasoning—meaning uttering the right magic words on the record before stating the ruling. AI doesn’t play favorites. It doesn’t get annoyed at an attorney’s tone. It doesn’t rush a decision because the docket is heavy or lunch is late. It just applies law to fact. No clerks, no court reporters, no translators. Real-time AI transcription is already approaching—if not surpassing—human court reporter accuracy. Add in multi-language translation capabilities, and you remove barriers for non-English speakers while capturing an immediate, searchable record. That’s not science fiction. That’s off-the-shelf capability today. If you’re an appellate lawyer, imagine not having to explain to your client why they need to pay $4,000 or more for a transcript, on top of your legal fees. Instead, within one minute of the court proceeding ending, an automated email delivers a near-perfect transcript for free. It doesn’t matter how long the hearing lasted, how many objections were raised, or how many different languages were spoken—the transcript is in your inbox before you even leave the courtroom, and it didn’t cost a dime. It’s not about replacing judges. It’s about improving justice. Some will read this and assume it’s an attack. That’s not the point. The point is that our justice system owes its stakeholders—litigants, taxpayers, and even judges themselves—an honest look at whether technology can help us deliver fairer, faster, and more consistent decisions. And in many contexts, AI can. Addressing the Objections “But judges bring empathy.” Empathy, when misapplied, becomes bias. Justice isn’t supposed to turn on how sympathetic a party appears. The law should drive outcomes, not emotion—particularly in systems built on predictability and equal treatment. “But what if the AI makes a mistake?” So do humans. The difference is: AI can be audited. Every line of reasoning, every logic path, every weighted factor—visible. Line by line. Judges, by contrast, are black boxes. We can’t scan their thoughts or feelings, or decode what really swayed them in chambers. Maybe someday we’ll be able to render human emotion and bias into something measurable. But until then, only one system gives us source code we can read—and fix. “But what about oral argument?” Let lawyers still present live or recorded arguments. AI can evaluate not just the words, but tone and demeanor—perhaps more objectively than a fatigued bench at 4:45 p.m. A Modest Proposal: Let’s Pilot It Start small. A hybrid system in a civil docket. Judges review and override AI recommendations only if necessary. Track results. Measure appeal rates. Benchmark timelines. See whether litigants find the outcomes fairer, faster, and more consistent. Justice demands humility—and the courage to improve even what we think works. Final Word: Know Thy Judge? Or Know the Law? Today, experienced attorneys know which counties lean conservative, which judges dislike certain arguments, and how to “read the room” rather than just cite the rule. That’s a problem. You shouldn’t have to know your judge. You should only have to know the law. AI might not be perfect. But it doesn’t need to be perfect to be better. It just has to be consistent, transparent, and free of personal agenda. That alone would be a revolution.

Contentious divorces often involve years-long battles over child custody, asset division, and spousal support. False claims of infidelity, domestic violence, child abuse, or financial misconduct are unfortunately common in high-conflict family law cases. One party may attempt to control the narrative by defaming their former spouse on social media. They may create fake profiles, connect with their ex’s contacts, and post lies designed to inflict maximum reputational harm. For these situations, family law attorneys should consult defamation counsel to evaluate any potential claims, remove unwanted online content, unmask anonymous online actors, and mount an aggressive defense. Benefits of Working with a Defamation Attorney on Family Law Matters Determining the necessity of a defamation lawsuit Are the false statements made by an ex-spouse or in-laws actionable? Could a properly worded demand letter stop the defamation and harassment and return your client’s leverage? Defamation counsel can roadmap a potential lawsuit—separate from the family matter—including the likelihood of success and claim valuation. Family law clients must consider that a new defamation lawsuit may increase hostilities between the parties—is it worth it? Would a defamation lawsuit serve the client’s overarching family law matter or make matters more acrimonious? Preventing client liability Amidst emotional turmoil, family law clients may be tempted to retaliate by making their own accusations online. Defamation counsel can educate clients on defamation laws and help them avoid liability while still defending themselves. Enforcing non-disparagement agreements Non-disparagement agreements may be essential components of a resolution plan for family law matters. Defamation counsel can provide proper language for those agreements to ensure they are enforceable, clear, and can be used to navigate alleged breaches of those agreements. Crafting effective demand letters Attorneys without defamation legal experience can draft a demand letter involving complained-of speech—but it’s unlikely to be an effective one. A mediocre demand letter does nothing more than inform your adversary that you hired counsel—a waste. A defamation attorney can help you to create a proper demand letter that explains why the offending speech is defamatory (i.e., specifically, why is it unlawful rather than merely disparaging). Is a defense or privilege implicated by their offending speech? Address it in the demand letter explaining why it is inapplicable. Pre-emptively defanging their defense will leave them with nothing other than the fear of an adverse verdict. Your defamation attorney will follow up the letter with a call to discuss what you truly want and to explore paths there. How Family Law Attorneys Can Work with a Defamation Lawyer Consult early Address defamation concerns at the outset of a case to prevent long-term damage. Defamation claims must usually be brought within one-to-three years from publication (depending on the state). Monitor online activity Monitor social media and public statements that could harm a client’s reputation. Take immediate legal action Issue demand letters, request content removals, and file lawsuits when necessary. Include reputation protection in settlements Non-disparagement agreements requiring prompt arbitration for breaches with attorney fees flowing to the prevailing party. These should be non-negotiable terms. Defamation attorneys should not charge for those consultations or case work-ups (we don’t). False accusations and online defamation can derail a family law case, affecting everything from custody arrangements to personal and professional reputations. By consulting with a defamation attorney, family law attorneys can provide a more comprehensive legal strategy for their clients.

Kenneth Economy v. Sutter East Bay Hospitals, et al. was a California wrongful termination case in which the trial court found a hospital liable for restricting a physician’s privileges without providing notice and a hearing. The hospital was ordered to pay damages for lost income, future lost income and tax neutralization. On appeal, the hospital only challenged the trial court’s damage award for tax neutralization. The Court of Appeal opinion filed on February 4, 2019 confirmed the lower court did not err in awarding an additional amount of damages intended to offset the tax consequences of a lump- sum award for lost earnings. The opinion further indicated there were no reported California decisions regarding the concept of tax neutralization and that federal appellate courts had endorsed it. The Court held that a tax neutralization award was consistent with Civil Code section 3333 which provides for damages to include “the amount which will compensate for all the detriment proximately caused by the wrongful conduct.” The purpose of a tax neutralization calculation as stated in the appeal was “to offset the increased tax burden on plaintiff resulting from a lump sum award of damages as compared to what plaintiff would have owed in taxes if the earnings had been received sequentially each year.” This tax neutralization award will neutralize the adverse tax consequences a plaintiff will face from having to pay taxes on a lump sum award in a single year instead of paying taxes at a lower rate over several years. Additionally, it will account for any changes in tax burden resulting from changes in income in both the past and future periods. I will illustrate this point with a simple example. In this example, Mr. Brown was terminated from his job as a supervisor at Common Industries and filed a wrongful termination lawsuit against his former employer. At the time of his termination, Mr. Brown received $85,000 per year in earnings and an additional $15,000 per year in benefits, for a total of $100,000 annually. At the time of his termination, he had a remaining statistical work-life expectancy of 20 years. If he had worked for the company for an additional 20 years, he would have received a total of $2,000,000 in earnings and benefits ($100,000 per year times 20 years). Mr. Brown prevailed in his litigation against Common Industries and received a total judgment of $2,000,000. The award is taxable; therefore, Mr. Brown will pay taxes on $2,000,000 in the year the award is paid. Total federal and state taxes are estimated to be 50%, or $1,000,000. If Mr. Brown had not been terminated from Common Industries and earned $2,000,000 in earnings and benefits over 20 years, the total amount he would have paid in taxes would have been less. His total earnings were $85,000 per year and the remaining $15,000 was the value of the benefits he received. He would have only paid taxes on the $85,000 per year. Mr. Brown would have been in a lower tax bracket earning $85,000 per year than he was in the year he received $2,000,000. If total federal and state taxes are estimated to be 30%, Mr. Brown will pay $25,500 each year for 20 years for a total of $510,000. In this simplified example, Mr. Brown should receive not only his lost earnings and benefits of $2,000,000 but also an additional $490,000 to account for the additional taxes he will now have to pay. However, this conclusion does not take into consideration several other factors which affect a tax neutralization calculation. One factor that needs to be considered is the time value of money. In the example, Mr. Brown will have to pay $1,000,000 in taxes in the present day compared to $510,000 in taxes over 20 years. Due to the time value of money, the $510,000 Mr. Brown would have paid over 20 years should be discounted to present value. This is the same type of calculation which would have been performed when analyzing his loss of earnings and benefits and any offset earnings and benefits. All future amounts are discounted to present day dollars. This present value adjustment will decrease the value of the taxes paid over 20 years—thereby increasing the amount necessary to compensate him for his additional tax burden. For example, $25,500 per year for 20 years discounted at a 4.0% net discount rate is $346,554, instead of $510,000 prior to discounting. Once the time value of money is taken into consideration, the difference between taxes Mr. Brown would have paid had he not been terminated and the lump sum taxes he will now pay is $653,446, a 28% increase in the original tax neutralization amount of $510,000. A second consideration is what additional amounts comprise Mr. Brown’s taxable earnings in any given year. The previous example assumes the only data necessary to determine Mr. Brown’s annual taxable income is his earnings from employment. However, in most instances this is not accurate. There are multiple other types of income which need to be considered when determining one’s total taxable income. Examples are spouse’s income, dividends, interest, Schedule C income, capital gains and losses and rental income. These amounts can be considerable and drastically alter an individual’s tax burden. Additionally, one should consider the plaintiff’s tax filing status, the type of deductions the plaintiff would have claimed and any changes in the status of dependents. A review of historical tax returns is helpful in determining how each of these items should be accounted for in a tax neutralization calculation. In a wrongful termination matter, post-termination or offset earnings are subtracted from the but-for earnings to determine a plaintiff’s economic loss prior to consideration of any tax neutralization amount. These post-termination earnings are also a factor when analyzing a change to a plaintiff’s tax burden. If the plaintiff is earning more or less than they had been prior to their termination, this will affect their tax burden. Taxes on this stream of income are considered along with taxes on the lump sum award when calculating the total taxes that will be paid by the plaintiff in his or her current situation. The same additional considerations are relevant for this income stream when calculating the total taxes that will now be owed: income to be included in taxable income, deductions, filing status and status of dependents. Once the initial tax neutralization calculation has been performed, this is not the end of the analysis. I will illustrate this with a continuation of the previous example in which Mr. Brown was awarded $2,000,000. Assuming the economic expert calculated a tax neutralization amount of $650,000, the result is total damages of $2,650,000. Therefore, the lump sum award is no longer $2,000,000 but instead is $2,650,000. The tax neutralization calculation now needs to be based on this updated award amount, which results in an increase to the tax neutralization amount. Each increase to the total lump sum amount awarded needs to be taken into consideration in the tax neutralization calculation. In conclusion, a tax neutralization calculation can be a considerable component of damages in a wrongful termination matter. As the total amount of damages increases, so too does the tax neutralization amount. Depending on the specific facts of a case, this additional calculation can increase a total award by 50% or more. As illustrated with the Brown v. Common Industries example, a multitude of factors need to be considered when performing this type of calculation. It is a detailed and complex calculation with multiple inputs. Considering the complexities and possible economic magnitude of this type of calculation, one will want to ensure they engage an economic expert who is familiar with this type of calculation and the nuances involved.

We have been writing about the personal traits and professional skills litigators need to be successful in pretrial discovery practice for a long time. Whether it’s offering tips on how to master remote depositions, pointing out the need to thoroughly understand deposition-related procedural rules, reporting on the professional imperative to develop and maintain technology competence, or tracking evolving professional obligations to conduct depositions ethically and securely, we’ve endeavored to offer helpful information for litigators working in a rapidly changing, increasingly tech-driven environment. Seasoned litigators, presenting their views during a “Top Ten Tips for New Litigators” discussion sponsored by the ABA Litigation Section’s Pretrial Practice and Discovery Committee, said that ethical conduct, preparation, technology competence, and professional development were among the leading keys to success for new trial attorneys. So, we were heartened when several of these themes were mentioned by litigation experts during a recent American Bar Association presentation. Seasoned litigators, presenting their views during a “Top Ten Tips for New Litigators” discussion sponsored by the ABA Litigation Section’s Pretrial Practice and Discovery Committee, said that ethical conduct, preparation, technology competence, and professional development were among the leading keys to success for new trial attorneys. Their “Top 10” tips were: Know all procedural and evidentiary rules applicable to the case Allow no surprises Be prepared Be the trusted person in the room Be a good teammate Maintain your reputation Take responsibility for professional development Be receptive to criticism Be willing to ask for help Practice self-care Several of the tips mentioned above have a direct relationship to pretrial practice in general and deposition practice in particular. Know Procedural and Evidentiary Rules A thorough knowledge of the rules governing pretrial matters—whether it’s a deposition or summary judgment motion—is critical. In deposition practice, litigators must be familiar with the rules on making and preserving objections to deposition questions. Making unwarranted objections, or directing witnesses not to answer appropriately asked questions, can be expensive. And some attorneys mistakenly believe that “remote depositions” are the same as “video depositions,” an error that the American Bar Association recently pointed out in its 2023 Best Practices for Remote Depositions guidance. Joseph Schaeffer, a Pittsburgh-based commercial and environmental and energy litigator in Babst, Calland, Clements and Zomnir P.C.’s litigation practice group, remarked that he’s frequently heard partners complain that new associates often fail to learn applicable court rules. “There’s no easier way to frustrate a partner and even worse to frustrate a court than not having read the rules before taking some type of action,” Schaeffer said. Applicable rules can come from several sources: jurisdiction-wide rules, local rules, and court orders. Familiarity with case-specific orders is also vital. Scheduling orders, case management orders, and stipulated e-discovery protocols need to be consulted and understood. Mark Romance, a commercial and business litigator and partner in Day Pitney L.L.P.’s Miami office, pointed out that making assumptions about which rules apply can be dangerous business. For example, he said, the court rules for the Southern District of Florida are different than those applicable just north in the Middle District of Florida. Court rules frequently change too, he added. “You really have to take the extra time to read the rules, read the rules, and read the rules again to make sure that you’re familiar with them in the jurisdictions in which you are practicing,” Romance said. Be Prepared In 2025, judges have no patience for litigators who have not mastered the technology used in depositions and court hearings. They didn’t have all that much patience for technology foot-draggers in 2022 either. “In terms of technology, I would say being prepared includes, if you’re going to be on a Zoom, for example, and you’re going to share documents, make sure your documents are ready,” Romance said. “Anticipate what you might want to use so that you’ve got it at your fingertips, and you can pull it right up whether it’s at a hearing or a meeting with clients or your team, and also knowing how the technology works.” Romance added that new litigators should make an effort to find out exactly which types of technologies are in use in the courtrooms where they will be practicing. Maintain a Good Reputation A reputation built by painstaking trial preparation and adherence to the highest standards of the legal profession is an asset that litigators can draw on, for themselves and their clients, throughout their legal careers. In deposition practice, this means unfailing honesty, reasonableness, courtesy, and reliability as far as knowing the law and meeting obligations to clients, the courts, and opposing counsel. Monette Davis, an insurance defense and commercial litigator with Stone Pigman Walther Wittmann L.L.C. in New Orleans, remarked that cultivating a reputation for trustworthiness will advance a new litigator’s legal career. “You want to be the person that the partner or the superior can go to and they know that they’re going to be able to rely on you, and even if it’s a small test, if it’s research, if it’s something you know that may not be the end-all, be-all for the case,” Davis said. Doing a good job on a small matter will build trust and lead to bigger assignments down the road, she said. Schaeffer remarked that being disrespectful to court staff is a sure way to get on a judge’s bad side. Romance added that, for attorneys whose reputation is not quite what they want it to be, it’s not too late to build a better one. Do you have a reputation that you’re the person who’s always late? Do you have a reputation as the person who’s known to be difficult, doesn’t give extensions, or requires three or four follow-up calls or emails before responding? “What is the reputation that you want,” Romance asked. “Take steps affirmatively to establish that reputation. Start one by one, little by little, re-establishing the reputation that you want to have in your community, in your firm, and it just takes one step and then another and another.” Take Responsibility for Professional Development Legal education and other professional development activities are necessary for success in the fast-changing practice of law. This is particularly true in the area of technology competence, a topic that crops up everywhere these days: electronic filing, e-discovery, data security, and remote depositions and virtual court hearings. Several states (Florida, North Carolina, and New York) have all mandated technology education in recent years. New Jersey is considering adding a technology education component to its lawyer regulations as well. Beyond strict legal education requirements, new litigators should learn how to network and add skills beyond those related to trial practice. New litigators are responsible for their own professional development, Davis said. Their law firm won’t necessarily do it for them. She advised new lawyers to “put themselves out there,” so to speak—to meet new people, to grow their network, and be open to new experiences. Pro bono work, joining a firm committee or a bar committee, serving on a non-profit organization’s board of directors all present opportunities to develop professionally. “Putting yourself out there, it can be scary, especially as a new lawyer, but being able to get out and open yourself up can help with your professional development,” she said. Practice Self-Care Wellness is a topic of growing interest within the litigation community even before COVID-19, which added rapid change, uncertainty, and social isolation to the list of challenges lawyers were already coping with. In 2020, for example, the Illinois Supreme Court Attorney Registration & Disciplinary Commission noted 29% of sanctioned attorneys had cited mental impairment or substance abuse as a contributor to their alleged ethical lapses. Davis said that she believes there is a connection between wellness and client service. Taking vacations and paying increased attention to physical fitness and emotional health will translate into delivering a better work product for clients. Romance advised finding time to take vacations longer than just a three-day weekend. The first day of a short weekend break is spent wondering about work left undone at the office and the last day is spent worrying about the week ahead. Ergo, no vacation at all. Schaeffer recommended that new lawyers find a hobby or some other fulfilling outside activity so that their sense of self-worth is not strictly tied to their sense of how their law practice is going. He added that the busiest lawyers he knows also take the most vacation time. It keeps them at the top of their game, Schaeffer said.

CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT Civil Procedure Madrigal et al. v. Hyundai Motor America (2025) _Cal. 5th_, 2025 WL 943693: The California Supreme Court decided a narrow question regarding the interplay between Code of Civil Procedure section 998 and the recovery of costs as the prevailing party under Code of Civil Procedure sections 1032 and 1033.5. The trial court ruled that section 998 did not apply because the parties settled before the trial was concluded. The Court of Appeal and the California Supreme Court disagreed, ruling that cost shifting under section 998 is not limited to cases resolved by trial or arbitration. The California Supreme Court ruled that when a plaintiff rejects a 998 offer or allows it be deemed withdrawn, and later agrees to settle before trial, section 998 sets the default rule regarding cost shifting if its terms are met, but the parties are free to agree to their own allocation of costs and fees as part of the settlement agreement. (March 20, 2025.) Torts Escamilla v. Vannucci (2025) _Cal. 5th_, 2025 WL 943692: The California Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal and the trial court, ruling that an action for malicious prosecution against an attorney, brought by formerly adverse parties and not by the attorney’s clients or the intended beneficiaries of the attorney’s clients, is governed by the two-year statute of limitations in California Code of Civil Procedure section 335.1, not the one-year limitations period in California Code of Civil Procedure section 340.6 for actions against attorneys. (March 20, 2025.) CALIFORNIA COURTS OF APPEAL Arbitration Arzate v. ACE American Insurance Company (2025) _ Cal.App.5th _, 2025 WL 309326: The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s order that reversed its earlier order granting defendant’s motion to compel and lifted the stay of litigation after neither of the parties took any action to initiate arbitration. The underlying action was a wage and hour action by employees against defendant employer. The arbitration agreements at issue required any person having employment related legal claims to submit them to arbitration. They also required the party who wanted to start the arbitration procedure to begin the process by filing a demand for arbitration. The trial court concluded that the defendant had the obligation to commence arbitration, which is why it lifted the litigation stay after no one initiated arbitration. The Court of Appeal disagreed and reversed the trial court, concluding that under the arbitration agreements the party wanting to assert a claim governed by the arbitration agreements had the obligation to commence arbitration. In this case that was the plaintiffs. Defendant did not breach the arbitration agreements or waive its right to arbitration by failing to submit the plaintiffs’ claims to arbitration. (C.A. 2nd, filed January 27, 2025, published February 19, 2025.) Employment Lowry v. Port San Luis Harbor Dist. (2025) _ Cal.App.5th _, 2025 WL 615281: The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s order granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment against plaintiff’s single cause of action alleging that defendant violated the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA; Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq.) when it concluded that plaintiff was not eligible for relief under FEHA and denied plaintiff’s request for disability retirement payments after plaintiff suffered a workplace injury rendering him unable to perform his essential functions as a harbor patrol officer even with reasonable accommodations. The Court of Appeal concluded that the denial of disability retirement payments is not an adverse employment action under FEHA. Disability retirement payments do not facilitate a qualified employee’s continued employment, job performance, or opportunity for advancement. They serve as income replacement for employees who can no longer work. An individual who is not a qualified employee cannot bring a disability discrimination claim under FEHA for the denial of disability retirement payments. (C.A. 2nd, February 26, 2025.) Contracts Miles v. Gernstein (2025) _ Cal.App.5th _, 2025 WL 942514: The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s judgment, following a bench trial, concluding that an oral traditional surrogacy agreement that plaintiff (a single lesbian) entered into with defendant (a single gay man) controlled the relationship between plaintiff and the child born following that agreement, and plaintiff was not a parent to the child under that agreement. The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s judgment, concluding that the law does not require that a traditional surrogacy contract be in writing, that Family Code section 7610 did not mandate a finding that plaintiff was the child’s mother, California case law did not prohibit the oral surrogacy agreement, and public policy supported the enforcement of the oral surrogacy agreement. (C.A. 3rd, March 28, 2025.) Insurance Prahl v. Allstate Northbrook Indemnity Co. (2025) _ Cal.App.5th _, 2025 WL 942513: The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s order denying plaintiff’s petition to compel arbitration of his underinsured motorist claim. The accident occurred in 2016. After settling with the two other drivers, plaintiff initiated his underinsured motorist claim with defendant and defendant agreed to arbitrate the claim on May 29, 2018. The matter was set for arbitration in November 2022, but was continued due to the unavailability of plaintiff’s counsel. In late 2023, plaintiff contacted defendant to reschedule the arbitration, and defendant took the position that the arbitration could not go forward because the five-year deadline to complete arbitration set forth in Insurance Code section 11580.2(i) had expired. The trial court properly denied the petition to compel arbitration, properly concluding that arbitration was barred by Insurance Code section 11580.2(i) and Judicial Council emergency rule 10 (Cal. Rules of Court, appen. I, emergency rule 10) did not extend the deadline. (C.A. 3rd, March 28, 2025.)