Survey for Appellate Attorneys. The California Supreme Court Advisory Committee on Rules for Publication of Court of Appeal Opinions is reviewing the current standards for publication of Court of Appeal opinions, and they've got some questions for appellate attorneys.

Here are some of the sorts of questions in the survey (and my two-cents):

• Are courts of appeal publishing all opinions that meet the criteria for publication? (I think not. I see expansion of, or significant distinction of, precedent in unpublished opinions.)
• Should unpublished opinions be citable in petitions for review to show a conflict? (Absolutely and the rules already allow for that. Such citation does not constitute citing the unpublished case for precedential reasons and is no different from the Supreme Court taking judicial notice of an unpublished opinion to note prior prosecutorial misconduct (or IAC) of an attorney involved in the current case. (See People v. Hill (1998) 17 Cal.4th 800,  847-848 and fn.9.))
• Should the rules governing partial publication be changed? (Yes. Let's go to the 9th Circuit model of putting the published and unpublished section in separate documents. That way you can pick up (or open a link to) a published slip opinion and know that the whole thing is published without trying to remember "this  opinion is certified for publication with the exception of parts I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VIIE, VIIIB, C, D, E, and IX" (this is a real footnote) as I flip through the opinion. O.k., not a big deal, but wouldn't it be a little easier?)