Volume 30 • Number 1 • 2017

THE JOURNAL OF THE LITIGATION SECTION, STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA Editor’s Foreword Ch-ch-changes By Benjamin G. Shatz, Editor-in-Chief

Cheetos to munch. Reefer madness notice that this issue contains some- has nothing to do with scuba diving what fewer (yet longer) articles than and much to do with legalized marijua- usual. This was a conscious choice, na. Joaquin Vazquez lays out the latest because this issue’s submissions were in Joint Laws Transforming just so gosh darned good at their full California. lengths, we went with the directors’ Returning to more pedestrian litiga- cuts. We hope you can handle the ch- tion issues, we have a pair of articles ch-change. on everyday bread-and-butter lawyer- Also of note, our fearless Section ing: John Conti gives us The Opening leader bring us up to date on the lat- Statement for the Defense, and Alison est developments transforming our Buchanan presents Identifying and State Bar. Our unified Bar is engaged Avoiding the Unauthorized Practice in a form of mitosis, separating regu- of Law in a Global Economy. latory functions from trade associa- Next, Marc (that’s with a ‘c’!) tion functions, with the latter off- Alexander returns with a book spring housing the Sections, including review—despite your abashed editor- your Litigation Section. This is no Benjamin G. Shatz in-chief misspelling his name wrong in “Space Oddity”; this is how many the last issue’s foreword. (Because it is state bars nationwide are structured. written last—and often at the last But this is a huge change for he late, great David Bowie moment—the foreword is really the California. Bowie said, “I don’t where exhorted us to “turn and last-word, and receives the weakest I’m going from here, but I promise it T face the strange ch-ch- editing.) Marc (still with a ‘c’) analyzes won’t be boring.” That applies here changes.” Well, if ever that time has UCI’s Professor Catherine Fisk’s book too. come, it’s now: in our nation, in our Writing for Hire: Unions, Hollywood Don’t sit idly by in “strange fascina- State, and in our Bar. We have a and Madison Avenue, a tale filled with tion” at what’s happening. Now more unique administration in Washington law, show business, and the real “mad than ever is the time to get involved to keep us glued to our news sources men.” with your Section. “Changes” was of choice. Closer to home, our Golden We conclude with some personal originally released on Bowie’s 1971 State has essentially legalized marijua- reflections. Bowie said, “You would album Hunky Dory. If our State Bar na. But put those concerns about think that a rock star being married to and other ch-ch-changes are to make stoned drivers at ease: self-driving a supermodel would be one of the for a hunky dory future, we need the robot cars are just around the corner! greatest things in the world. It is.” Well, full participation of lawyers like you. For a look at the future that is here Bowie never graced the pages of right now, this issue offers Ray California Litigation, but we have some Johnson’s article bringing us up to stars of our own to spotlight. Yen- Benjamin G. Shatz, Editor-in-Chief of speed in Robot Vehicles and the Real Shyang Tseng shares insights gleaned this journal, is a Certified Specialist in Appellate Law and co-chairs the World. So many drivers already seem from his First Appellate Argument. Appellate Practice Group of Manatt, like they’re not paying attention to the And we close with Trial Lawyer Hall of Phelps & Phillips, LLP, in Los Angeles. road, perhaps self-driving cars will Famer Ephraim Margolin, who shares [email protected] help. But then there are the drivers such interesting tales that the editing who simply can’t pay attention, not process trimmed this piece with little with all the groovy colors to dig and more than a haircut. Indeed, you may California Litigation Vol. 30 • No. 1 • 2017

3 No, 42 is Not the Answer!

By Editor-in-Chief-in-Error, Benjamin G. Shatz

n the classic novel The Hitchhiker’s Guide Accordingly, recognizing that 42 is not to the Galaxy by Douglas Adams, pan- always the answer—and can be a disturbingly Idimensional, hyper-intelligent beings cre- wrong answer—we present the correct fig- ate a supercomputer called Deep Thought to ures below, and hope that our 42 was not figure out the answer to the ultimate question nearly as upsetting as Deep Thought’s. of life, the universe, and everything. After seven and a half millions years to compute and check the answer, Deep Thought finally presented its answer, which was the number 42. This answer was rather disconcerting. Similarly disconcerting was how our last issue presented a chart on page 14 accompa- nying Professor Uelmen’s article on the California Supreme Court that inexplicably contained numerous errors, including the astounding figure that Justice Corrigan had supposedly published a large number of dis- senting opinions in the 2015-2016 fiscal year: 42 dissenting opinions, according to the table, to be precise. And that’s precisely—and obvi- ously—wrong, of course.

California Litigation Vol. 30 • No. 1 • 2017

4