10 attorney-written columns that resonated with readers in 2024

1. After the avalanche: Nathan Hochman becomes the 44th district attorney of LA County, Nov. 6

By James R. Bozajian, Councilmember City of Calabasas

The 2024 election cycle concluded with former federal prosecutor Nathan Hochman defeating incumbent George Gascon in a decisive victory to become the 44th district attorney of Los Angeles County. In this article, James Bozajian argues that Hochman's landslide win, with 61% of the vote, reflected widespread public dissatisfaction with Gascon's controversial reforms, which were perceived as contributing to rising crime rates. Bozajian also argued that Hochman's disciplined campaign leveraged Gascon's unpopularity, strong fundraising, and bipartisan endorsements to secure support in a predominantly Democratic county. Now, the Calabasas city councilmember wrote, Hochman faces the challenge of restoring law and order in the nation's largest county while fostering a balanced and pragmatic approach to criminal justice reform.

2. A new DVRO law allows limited civil discovery but with careful checks and balances, Jan. 10

By Judge Lawrence P. Riff of the Los Angeles County Superior Court

California's new Family Code section 6309, which introduced limited civil discovery in domestic violence restraining order (DVRO) cases, significantly altered practice and expectations in this area. Judge Lawrence Riff wrote that the law resolved prior ambiguities, expressly allowing discovery only with judicial approval and upon a showing of good cause, emphasizing the prevention of litigation abuse and undue delays. Section 6309 required discovery requests to be made orally or in writing at the evidentiary hearing, and courts had to weigh factors like relevance, trauma risk, and delay before granting them. This game-changing statute reshaped the landscape of DVRO litigation by balancing fairness with the need for swift justice.

3. AB 2773: A California bill aimed at curbing pretextual stops, Jan. 29

By K. Chike Odiwe, San Jose civil rights lawyer

California Assembly Bill 2773, signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom in 2022, garnered widespread attention for its bold steps to reform traffic stop protocols and address racial disparities in policing, Chike Odiwe wrote. The law required officers to explicitly state the reason for a stop before proceeding and barred questions about a driver's race, ethnicity, or gender. Aimed at reducing pretextual stops -- where minor infractions were used to investigate larger suspicions -- the bill came amid data showing Black and Latino Californians faced disproportionately higher searches and arrests during stops. By prioritizing transparency and safety, AB 2773 became a focal point in discussions about equity, accountability, and the future of law enforcement.

4. Overruled? Court of Appeal panel overrules earlier decision, raising questions about precedent, Sept. 20

By Justice Michael J. Raphael of the 4th District Court of Appeal

The California Court of Appeal's authority to overrule its own precedent came under scrutiny in Cohen v. Superior Court, 102 Cal.App.5th 706 (2024), where a panel explicitly overruled Riley v. Hilton Hotels Corp., 100 Cal.App.4th 599 (2002). Unlike the federal appellate system, which relies on en banc panels for overruling precedent, California's Court of Appeal operates without such a mechanism, creating a unique dynamic where conflicting opinions can coexist statewide. Justice Michael J. Raphael wrote that while Cohen sparked debate by disapproving rulings from other districts, critics questioned whether one panel could overrule another or if disagreements should merely leave conflicting precedent for trial courts to navigate. With the California Supreme Court now poised to address these issues, Cohen highlights unresolved tensions about the limits of appellate authority and the need for consistent statewide legal interpretations, Raphael wrote.

5. The women who served in Vietnam, March 11

By Justice Eileen C. Moore of the 4th District Court of Appeal

Hardships women faced in Vietnam -- combat exposure, role shifts, moral dilemmas, and isolation -- along with undiagnosed PTSD and depression, worsened by a lack of recognition for their service. These issues resonate in the modern era, where women veterans -- now the fastest-growing segment of the U.S. veteran population -- face similar struggles, including high rates of trauma, sexual harassment, and mental health disorders. Justice Eileen Moore highlighted how Veterans Treatment Courts (VTCs), which have proven effective in reducing recidivism among veterans, often lack gender-specific programs to address the distinct needs of women. As the number of women veterans continues to rise, the article calls for systemic changes to ensure VTCs provide tailored, trauma-informed care.

6. A terrible idea, Sept. 17

By Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean and Jesse H. Choper Distinguished Professor of Law UC Berkeley School of Law

In September 2024, the California State Bar proposed an experimental bar exam for November, offering up to 40 points to participants who perform well, to be applied to the 2025 exam. The plan, featuring Kaplan-prepared questions, raised concerns from Chemerinsky about fairness, equity, and the exam's integrity, particularly with remote testing and its scheduling during the fall semester. However, on Oct. 22, the California Supreme Court approved the incentive but clarified that extra points would only be awarded for performance, not participation.

7. Connecting the dots on the admissibility of expert opinions on defendant's intent, March 14

By Justice Brian M. Hoffstadt of the 2nd District Court of Appeal

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Diaz v. United States, No. 23-14, clarifying the extent to which expert witnesses can offer opinions on a defendant's mens rea. The case arose from a dispute over whether expert testimony about the typical mental state of individuals involved in drug trafficking is admissible. On June 30, 2023, Diaz petitioned the Court to hear her case, and on Nov. 13, 2023, certiorari was granted. Oral arguments were heard on March 19, 2024. On June 20, 2024, the Court ruled 6-3 that expert testimony about the behavior of "most people" in similar situations, without directly addressing the defendant's specific intent, is admissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence.

8. Settlements in joint tortfeasor cases: A guide to the good faith standard, Sept. 13

By Abe Melamed of Signature Resolution

This article explained "good faith" settlements in California law, focusing on cases with joint tortfeasors. It described how one defendant, like a staffing agency, might settle a claim while a co-defendant, such as the employer, does not. The article outlined the process for seeking court approval for a good faith settlement, which shields the settling party from future contribution claims. It highlighted key factors courts considered, like fairness and potential collusion. Additionally, it cautioned defendants to review indemnity clauses in contracts, as they might not be protected by a good faith settlement. Ultimately, the article showed how good faith settlements could resolve cases but required careful planning.

9. The false narrative around CEQA and the California housing crisis, July 25

By Andrew W. Schwartz of Shute Mihaly & Weinberger LLP

The piece addressed California's ongoing affordable housing crisis, highlighting how some real estate developers and advocates, including the Building Industry Association and YIMBYs, falsely claimed that environmental protections, particularly the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), hindered housing development. It argued that CEQA's regulations did not obstruct housing projects but instead ensured they addressed environmental impacts. It also highlighted high land and construction costs, plus lack of subsidies, as the real causes of the housing shortage, and criticized efforts to weaken CEQA, arguing they ignored the need for more public investment in affordable housing.

10. The trauma of killing remotely, July 8

By Justice Eileen C. Moore of the 4th District Court of Appeal

Drones are transforming modern warfare, but their psychological toll on operators is significant. Despite being miles away from the battlefield, drone pilots experience PTSD, anxiety, and depression at rates similar to those in traditional combat. The emotional strain is heightened by long hours of surveillance and witnessing the effects of their strikes. As drone use increases, it's crucial to recognize the mental health impact on operators and ensure they receive proper support.