Bench & Bar

In this week's episode: With all due respect, it means the oppositeBaruch C. Cohen of the Law Office of Baruch C. Cohen APLC examines the courtroom phrase "with all due respect" and what it signals when counsel deploys it against a tentative ruling already committed to writing. Cohen argues the disclaimer is a shield that reveals the absence of the respect it claims, and that the most experienced litigators say less when a ruling already favors them — pressing past a firm tentative tends to harden the record, not move it.A new path for construction defects in CaliforniaBrenda K. Radmacher, partner at Seyfarth Shaw LLP, breaks down Assembly Bill 1903, the most sweeping proposed overhaul of California's construction defect regime since SB 800, the Right to Repair Act. The bill would make the prelitigation repair process a true prerequisite to suit, restore a resultant-damage requirement of present physical damage, and create a voluntary "certified building" pathway that could immunize qualifying condominium projects from later defect claims.What caregiving taught me about being a better lawyerJessica K. Lomakin, partner at Best Best & Krieger LLP, reframes the unbilled, largely invisible labor of caregiving — what she calls the "fourth shift" — as a category of work in itself rather than an interruption to legal practice. Lomakin argues the judgment, triage, and decision-making under incomplete information it demands are the same skills that make a capable lawyer, and that naming that reality serves the profession better than absorbing it in silence.

In this episode of Bench & Bar: The push to rein in discovery abuseRetired Los Angeles County Superior Court Independent Calendar Judge Mel Red Recana responds to Judge Lawrence Riff's 10 Principles for Fixing Civil Discovery, arguing that cultural reform alone isn't enough. Recana calls for embedding the principles into daily courtroom practice, local rules, and legislation modeled after CCP 2016.090 with enforceable sanctions for violations.Deja vu: Lawyer's mistakes might mean retrying the same PI caseDaniel V. Kohls, neutral at Signature Resolution, breaks down why a clear attorney error doesn't automatically produce a viable malpractice claim. Under California's trial-within-a-trial methodology, plaintiffs must relitigate the underlying personal injury case to establish causation — and if that case lacked merit or the original judgment was uncollectible, the malpractice claim fails with it.How Rutgers' $500M fumble can help reform college footballFrank N. Darras, founding partner at DarrasLaw, uses Rutgers University's 516-million-dollar athletics deficit as a case study in what happens when elite conference ambitions outpace financial oversight. Darras proposes a dedicated college football commissioner with authority to set NIL standards, enforce spending caps, and require independent audits — backed by a governing charter with real legal teeth.

In this episode:Don't sign blind: How Campos redefines judicial responsibilityBernard C. Barmann Jr. of the Metro Justice Building contends that In re Domestic Partnership of Torres Campos and Munoz extends citation verification obligations directly to the bench. With nearly 1,000 U.S. hallucination incidents logged as of May 2026, judges who sign proposed orders containing unverified authorities now face institutional, reputational, and appellate risk.Church v. State: A takings conundrumMichael M. Berger of Manatt, Phelps and Phillips examines the federal government's effort to condemn a 1.3-mile border wall gap owned by the Catholic Diocese of Las Cruces, setting up a rare First and Fifth Amendment collision. Under Wilson versus Block, the Diocese must first establish that the proposed wall would impair pilgrim access to the Mount Cristo Rey shrine before the government must justify its interest as compelling and least restrictive.When the benefits end: Workers' comp timelines vs. human recoveryYosi Yahoudai and Melissa Jamero Herbito of J&Y Law argue that California's workers' compensation system closes cases on statutory timelines that routinely diverge from actual recovery. Labor Code section 4660.1(c) leaves cognitive and psychiatric impairments least reflected in permanent disability ratings — and third-party liability exposure is often the only path to fuller recovery.

In This Episode"I attended a law, AI and child safety conference. What I heard was shocking" Zachary N. Zaharoff of Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy reports that a Media Law Resource Center conference on child safety online was dominated by corporate liability strategy, not child welfare. Platform attorneys should expect Section 230 and First Amendment defenses to remain the industry's primary shield as these cases advance."Bad AI citations: Crimes and punishments" Myron Moskovitz of the Moskovitz Appellate Team examines a California appellate case where fabricated citations ensnared both an attorney and judicial officers in the same proceeding. The attorney faced sanctions and a State Bar referral; the judicial officers did not. Citation verification now runs to the bench — and sanctions exposure remains uneven."Protect access to justice and be munificent" Arash Homampour and Nicholas Rowley of Trial Lawyers for Justice argue that Uber's proposed California constitutional amendment would cap plaintiff-side contingency fees in motor vehicle and products liability cases while leaving defense arrangements untouched. The Legislative Analyst's Office projects reduced filings and higher Medi-Cal costs.Read all three columns and browse the full Perspectives section at dailyjournal.com.

In This Episode"Courts Ordered to Police AI Without a Budget" William Slomanson, Distinguished Professor Emeritus, Thomas Jefferson School of LawIn re Domestic Partnership of Campos and Munoz put the problem in sharp relief: California's 4th District reversed a court order built on hallucinated AI citations. Standard 10.80b3 now requires judicial officers to verify AI-generated material — but no funding or staffing has followed. SB 574 extends parallel restrictions to arbitrators. For attorneys relying on AI-assisted research, the verification obligation now runs both ways."The Going and Coming Rule When an Employee Has a Hybrid Work Schedule" Michael E. Rubinstein, Law Office of Michael E. RubinsteinChang v. Southern California Permanente Medical Group confirms that a hybrid schedule doesn't suspend the going-and-coming rule. A standing calendar entry and pre-collision texts with coworkers weren't enough to bring a physician's personal errand within course and scope of employment. Chang is reliable precedent for employers' counsel — if the evidentiary record is locked down early."LA's Perfect Storm of Deferred Maintenance, Crumbling Infrastructure and Stolen Copper Wire" Jason Javaheri, Co-Founder and Co-CEO, J&Y Law; Parham Nikfarjam, Senior Trial Attorney, J&Y LawLos Angeles is simultaneously funding Willits settlement repairs and absorbing claims tied to conditions those repairs haven't reached. Copper theft now drives 40% of streetlight outages, some lasting more than a year. For attorneys litigating against the city, the structural conditions generating claims aren't resolving — they're accumulating.Read all three columns and browse the full Perspectives section at dailyjournal.com.