"This is an appeal run amok."

"[A]n appeal run amok" is how California's Third Appellate District described a child dependency appeal in the first sentence of a published opinion filed yesterday. In the second sentence of the decision, authored by Presiding Justice Scotland, the court noted that "Not only does the appeal lack merit, the opening brief is a textbook example of what an appellate brief should not be." I couldn't even begin to identify or summarize all the defects and ethical violations the court went on to describe as it addressed each of 19 issues. I'll just mention a couple of unusual aspects of the opinion: the panel identifies the counsel at fault by name in the body of the opinion, the court chides the presiding justice of the court (who happens to also be the author of the opinion) for allowing the oversized brief (76,235 words), and the court directed the clerk to send a copy of the opinion to the state bar.

I do wonder, however, whether it was necessary to so publicly rebuke the attorney in a published opinion. The individual attorney could have been dealt with through the state-bar referral. The problems identified, while not completely isolated to this case, are hardly rampant in appellate briefs in California. And a published opinion is hardly necessary to remind most appellate practitioners of such basics as abiding by court rules, not mis-representing the record, citing authority in support of arguments, and not raising non-cognizable issues. The court itself noted how few applications it gets for leave to file oversized briefs.

For those who need a primer on appellate brief-writing or who enjoy a little appellate-practice rubbernecking, the opinion is worth a read.