You have to literally disobey an order in California to be held in contempt. But federal courts are a little more touchy-feely: they will find a contempt for violating the “spirit” of their orders. Tim and Jeff compare the Ninth Circuit's contempt finding against Apple in the Epic Games dispute, and a state litigant who got around a visitation-time order but without violating the letter of the order, so no contempt.

Meanwhile, a CEQA plaintiff that won at the Court of Appeal—only to be reversed by emergency legislation and the Supreme Court—learned the hard way that "prevailing" on the law as written means nothing if the Legislature rewrites the rules mid-case.

Key points:

• Contempt requires literal violation in California, not just bad faith. But in federal court, violating the “spirit” of an order is contempt.
• Legislative abrogation torpedoed $1.2M in CEQA fees: Plaintiffs in Make UC a Good Neighbor v. Regents won significant CEQA victories establishing that crowd noise and alternative locations must be analyzed—then watched the Legislature pass emergency legislation abrogating both holdings. After the Supreme Court reversed, the Court of Appeal denied nearly $1.2 million in private attorney general fees, calling the prior opinion "smoldering ruins, not citable precedent." The court held plaintiffs weren't "successful parties" because they failed to halt the project, even though they vindicated principles under the law as it existed when filed.
• Ninth Circuit discovery ruling survives en banc review: The court declined to rehear the Trump administration's challenge to a discovery order requiring production of federal reorganization and layoff plans, rejecting executive privilege claims without requiring plaintiffs to show bad faith. Judge Bumatay's dissent warned of a "binding dicta trap" where the panel's comments on what qualifies as deliberative could become binding precedent.
• California Supreme Court limits Public Records Act obligations: Superior Courts can issue declaratory relief even after documents are produced if the dispute is likely to recur, but the Public Records Act does not impose a statutory duty to preserve documents a public agency identifies as exempt.

California’s New Legal Rules for 2026: AI, Photo Proof of Service, and Simpler Statements of Decision

New statutes and court rules taking effect in 2026 and 2027 will change how California lawyers serve papers, preserve appellate issues, and disclose their use of artificial intelligence. Appellate attorneys Tim Kowal and Jeff Lewis focus on what actually matters in practice—what to fix now, and where the new traps are likely to appear.

The big changes:

• AI in the Courts: Rule of Court 10.430 requires courts to either ban AI use by judicial officers and research attorneys or adopt a formal AI policy with verification and disclosure requirements. Expect cautious policies, broad disclosures, and little tolerance for “the AI did it” excuses.
• One Deadline for Statements of Decision: AB 515 eliminates the short-trial/long-trial distinction. If you want a statement of decision, you must request it before submitting…and you should do it in writing.

Other changes worth noting:

• Photo Proof of Service: Starting January 2027, AB 747 requires process servers to document service attempts with photographs showing GPS coordinates and timestamps.
• Court Reporter Disclosure: AB 711 requires meet-and-confer declarations to disclose whether court reporter attendance was discussed and the outcome.
• Electronic Service Authorized: SB 85 allows courts to approve service by email or electronic means when traditional service fails.
• Expanded Mediation Authority: Courts may order mediation in cases up to $75,000 if at least one party requests it and no discovery disputes are pending.
• AI Disclosure in Bankruptcy Court: The Southern District of California Bankruptcy Court now requires disclosure of AI tools used and certification of independent accuracy review.

Listen now to understand what to change in your templates and where the next procedural missteps are waiting.

AI-sanctions might get eyeballs, but the bigger sanctions are still for plain old bad lawyering. Jeff also raises this ethical and pragmatic question: who defends the lawyer when sanctions threaten the client? Should counsel facing an OSC retain separate counsel for the sanctions component to avoid divided attention and better protect client interests? What if the costs of independent counsel are likely to exceed the sanction?

• $25K for using Anti-SLAPP as a litigation weapon. A bare-bones anti-SLAPP was amplified by record emails suggesting the strategy was to inflict cost and pain rather than win on the merits.
• $13K for relitigating the merits through a fee appeal. The appeal purported to challenge fees, but largely recycled arguments already rejected in the prior appeal. The court finds the effort both objectively meritless and subjectively aimed at rehashing settled ground.
• <$2K for fabricated authority & thin explanations. Schlichter v. Kennedy results in $1,750 against an attorney who relied on nonexistent or inapposite citations and offered credibility-challenged explanations about verification methods. After the court’s exhaustive point-by-point teardown, the monetary sanction seems merciful.
• Pro per’s sanction is dismissal of appeal. In Arno Kuglua v. Young Park, the Court of Appeal dismisses an appeal for failure to support arguments with proper authority.

Also: AI guidance from the courts**:** The California Courts of Appeal publish user-facing AI guidance emphasizing verification, independent source-checking, and personal accountability for filings—even if AI assists with drafting.