https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/ en https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/news/supreme-court-makes-appointments-committee-judicial-ethics-opinions-3 Supreme Court Makes Appointments to the Committee on Judicial Ethics OpinionsBalassone, Merrill Wed, 10/21/2026 - 16:00 News Release The California Supreme Court today announced the appointment of two new members and the reappointment of one member to the Supreme Court Committee on Judicial Ethics Opinions (CJEO), an independent committee that helps inform the judiciary and the public on judicial ethics topics. The court appointed Judge Michael B. Harper of the Superior Court of Trinity County to fill the vacancy that will be created by Judge Robert J. Trentacosta’s retirement next month. Judge Harper will serve the remaining partial term from Nov. 21 through Dec. 31, 2027.  The court also appointed Judge Patricia L. Kelly of the Superior Court of Santa Barbara County to fill the vacancy that will be created by Justice Marla J. Miller’s departure from the committee at the end of this year following her retirement earlier this month. Judge Kelly will serve a full four-year term beginning Jan. 1, 2027. The court reappointed Justice Shama Hakim Mesiwala of the Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, to a four-year term beginning Jan. 1, 2027. About the Committee on Judicial Ethics Opinions (CJEO) The Committee on Judicial Ethics Opinions is a 12-member advisory committee that includes appellate justices, trial court judges, and commissioners. The committee is appointed and authorized by the California Supreme Court, but its work is independent of the court, the Judicial Council, and all other entities. Its opinions are advisory and do not necessarily reflect the views of the California Supreme Court or any other entity.  The committee issues formal opinions, informal opinions, and oral advice on proper judicial conduct pursuant to the California Code of Judicial Ethics and other authorities.   https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/news/judicial-council-approves-updated-parameters-assess-judicial-workload-and-need Judicial Council Approves Updated Parameters to Assess Judicial Workload and Need natalie.l.ston… Fri, 10/16/2026 - 15:08 News Release SAN FRANCISCO- The Judicial Council at its Oct. 16 business meeting adopted updated parameters to help assess judicial need in trial courts. As part of the 2026 Judicial Workload Study, the updated parameters adjust the judicial work year, the judicial workday value, and caseweights—the amount of judicial time certain types of cases require. The parameters are periodically updated to accurately reflect judicial workload, which can change over time due to new laws, technology, or case-processing practices that may affect how much time it takes to process each court filing.  “The Judicial Workload Study rests on the participation of more than 1,200 judicial officers and 18 courts who recorded their time for 4 weeks during a very busy period in the courts,” said retired Judge Thomas E. Kuhnle, vice chair of the council’s Data Analytics Advisory Committee. “The study had a 98% participation rate. The result is the most comprehensive picture of judicial workload this branch has ever had.”  The council approved the proposed workload study with one amendment—raising the updated judicial workday value to 431 minutes of case-related time per working day.  The council also approved the use of the 2026 Judicial Workload Study as the basis to allocate 13 judgeships that have been funded in the governor’s budget over the next five years. (Watch archived video of this agenda item) Other Items on the Council Meeting Agenda:  Certification Changes for Court Interpreters: The council approved changes to the California court interpreter certification requirements, including an orientation, an additional screening exam, and allowing candidates to carry over passing scores on individual sections of an exam for up to two years. These changes are recommended to improve candidate success and expand the pool of qualified court interpreters. (Watch archived video of this agenda item) New Payment Policies for Independent Contractor Interpreters: The council approved raising the maximum daily compensation rate for independent contractor interpreters. The council raised the daily compensation rates to the federal levels to address increased interpreter costs while ensuring compliance with the statutory limit that rates not exceed those paid to federally certified court interpreters. The council also approved a new statewide framework to ensure all courts use the same contract terms for contract interpreter services. The framework includes standardized nonnegotiable rates, travel compensation, contractual obligations, and administrative procedures to be used by all courts. The policy also promotes the use of remote video interpreting when appropriate. (Watch archived video of this agenda item)   Pilot Program for American Sign Language Interpreters: The council authorized a pilot program to evaluate the limited use of qualified American Sign Language (ASL) Generalist Interpreters, credentialed interpreters who are not currently certified as ASL court interpreters. Six to 10 volunteer courts will participate in the program, which includes safeguards such as using these generalist interpreters for only non-complex, non-evidentiary hearings and requiring training, as well as specific testing and ethics requirements. Participating courts and council staff will closely monitor the program and user experiences. The program will also provide ASL generalist interpreters with a pathway towards certification, supporting the development of a qualified ASL court interpreter workforce that can meet the demand of the fourth-most requested language in California courts. (Watch archived video of this agenda item) Court Adoption and Permanency Month Proposal: The council proclaimed November 2026 to be Adoption and Permanency Month, with a special focus on the work of juvenile courts to support guardianship. When reunification or adoption is not possible, guardianships provide a pathway to a safe, permanent placement for children. In 2025, approximately 10% of children who exited foster care were through a legal guardianship. The council heard a presentation from a guardian about the legal recognition and essential resources guardianship provided for their family. (Watch archived video of this agenda item) Grant Funding for Court Appointed Special Advocates: The council approved the allocation of $19.9 million in grant funding for the California Court Appointed Special Advocate (CASA) Association. The council provided $16 million in funding, to be distributed equitably between the state’s 45 local CASA programs, to expand capacity, recruitment, and training of volunteers to advocate for children under the jurisdiction of a juvenile court. Another $3.9 million was provided to be used statewide for recruitment initiatives, developing a training curriculum, and collecting data on program implementation and outcomes.  The complete meeting agenda and council reports are posted to the California Courts Meeting Information Center and an archived webcast of today’s meeting will be posted to the center as soon as it is available.  https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/news/commission-consider-appointments-courts-appeal-15 Commission to Consider Appointments to Courts of AppealKaren.Datangel Thu, 10/15/2026 - 12:55 News Release The Commission on Judicial Appointments will hold in-person hearings in San Francisco on Nov. 16 starting at 2:00 p.m. to consider two appointments by Gov. Gavin Newsom. The commission will consider the following appointments: 2:00 p.m.: Brian Goldman, as associate justice of the First Appellate District, Division Two 3:00 p.m.: Adam Hofmann, as associate justice of the First Appellate District, Division Four The hearing webcasts will be streamed live on the California Courts Newsroom. The state Constitution specifies that a gubernatorial appointment to the Court of Appeal is effective when confirmed by the Commission on Judicial Appointments.  The commission members who will consider the appointments are California Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero (Chair); California Attorney General Rob Bonta; and Administrative Presiding Justice Jim Humes. Appointee BiographiesBrian Goldman would fill the vacancy created by the retirement of Justice Marla J. Miller. He has served in multiple roles at the Office of Governor Gavin Newsom including as the Governor’s chief deputy legal affairs secretary since 2023 and as deputy legal affairs secretary from 2021 to 2023. He previously worked in private practice at Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe as a partner from 2018 to 2021 and as an associate from 2013 to 2018. He served as a law clerk at the U.S. Supreme Court from 2012 to 2013, as a trial attorney in the U.S. Department of Justice from 2011 to 2012, and as a law clerk at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals from 2010 to 2011. He received his Juris Doctor from Stanford Law School.  Adam Hofmann would fill the vacancy created by the elevation of Justice Tracie Brown to presiding justice. He has served as the deputy judicial appointments secretary at the Office of Governor Gavin Newsom since 2023. Mr. Hofmann held multiple roles at Hanson Bridgett LLP including as Partner, Senior Counsel, and Associate from 2006 to 2023. He was an associate at Kaufman & Logan LLP from 2005 to 2006. He was an adjunct professor at the University of San Francisco School of Law from 2012 to 2018. He received his Juris Doctor from the University of San Francisco School of Law. Testimony and CommentRequests to testify or written comments on the appointment must be received by the commission no later than 5 p.m. on Nov. 6 (five court days prior to the hearing). Anyone wishing to testify before the commission must state that request in writing and include a summary of the facts on which any testimony or opinion will be based.   Submissions via email to coja@jud.ca.gov are strongly encouraged. Hard copies are not required.  If you would like to mail your request, you may also reach the commission at:  Commission on Judicial Appointments  c/o Chief Justice of California  Supreme Court of California  350 McAllister Street  San Francisco, California 94102  Attention: Secretary to the Commission   Guidelines for the Commission on Judicial Appointments are published in the appendix to the California Rules of Court and are posted on the California Courts website. https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/news/commission-confirms-three-appointments-courts-appeal-0 Commission Confirms Three Appointments to Courts of AppealKaren.Datangel Fri, 10/09/2026 - 11:18 News Release Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero, chair of the Commission on Judicial Appointments, announced today that the commission confirmed three appointments to California’s Courts of Appeal in Los Angeles and Santa Ana: • Judge Alexander Giza, as associate justice of the Second Appellate District, Division Three (Los Angeles) • Judge Cindy Pánuco, as associate justice of the Second Appellate District, Division Three (Los Angeles) • Judge Maria Daghlian Hernandez, as associate justice of the Fourth Appellate District, Division Three (Santa Ana) The appointees were confirmed by unanimous vote of the three-member commission, which includes: California Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero (Chair); California Attorney General Rob Bonta; Presiding Justice Frances Rothschild (for the Second Appellate District hearings); and Presiding Justice Manuel Ramirez (for the Fourth Appellate District hearing). You can learn more in the public documents available for this hearing. Appointee Biographies Judge Alexander Giza fills the vacancy created by the retirement of Justice Anne H. Egerton, effective Oct. 11. He has served as a Los Angeles Superior Court judge since 2019. He previously worked as a partner at Hueston Hennigan from 2015 to 2018, a partner at Russ August & Kabat from 2009 to 2014, and as an associate at Irell & Manella from 2001 to 2009. He received his Juris Doctor from the University of California, Los Angeles School of Law. Judge Cindy Pánuco fills the vacancy created by the elevation of Justice Rashida Adams to presiding justice. She has served as a Los Angeles Superior Court judge since 2024. She previously served as of counsel at Perez & Perez from 2023 to 2024, as partner at Hadsell Stormer & Renick LLP from 2016 to 2019, and as an associate from 2009 to 2016. She worked in multiple roles at the Los Angeles Public Counsel including as vice president and chief programs officer from 2020 to 2023 and directing attorney of the Consumer Rights and Economic Justice Project from 2018 to 2020. She received her Juris Doctor from Loyola Law School. Judge Maria Daghlian Hernandez fills the vacancy created by the retirement of Justice Maurice Sanchez. She has served as an Orange Superior Court judge since 2009 and as an Orange Superior Court commissioner from 2006 to 2009. She previously served as a senior deputy public defender at the Orange County Public Defender’s Office from 1995 to 2006 and worked as an associate at the Law Offices of Patrick D. McNeal from 1992 to 1995. She received her Juris Doctor from Western State College of Law. https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/news/judicial-council-consider-updated-parameters-assess-judicial-workload-and-need Judicial Council to Consider Updated Parameters to Assess Judicial Workload and Neednatalie.l.ston… Fri, 10/09/2026 - 09:57 News Release SAN FRANCISCO- The Judicial Council at its Oct. 16 business meeting will consider adopting updated parameters to assess judicial need in trial courts.  As part of the 2026 Judicial Workload Study, the updated parameters adjust the judicial work year, the judicial workday value, and caseweights - the amount of judicial time certain types of cases require. The parameters are periodically updated to accurately reflect judicial workload.  The council will also consider using the 2026 Judicial Workload Study as the basis to allocate 13 judgeships that have been funded in the governor’s budget over the next five years. Other Items on Council Meeting Agenda:  Certification Changes for Court Interpreters: The council will consider changes to the California court interpreter certification, including an orientation, an additional screening exam, and allowing candidates to carry over passing scores on individual sections of an exam for up to two years. These changes are recommended to improve candidate success and expand the pool of qualified court interpreters.  New Policies for Independent Contractor Interpreters: The council will consider raising the maximum daily compensation rate for independent contractor interpreters, while ensuring it is not higher than the rate paid to federally certified interpreters, as required by the annual Budget Act. A new statewide framework is also recommended to ensure all courts use the same contract terms for interpreter services. Pilot Program for American Sign Language Interpreters: The council will consider authorizing a pilot program to evaluate the limited use of qualified American Sign Language (ASL) Generalist Interpreters, credentialed interpreters who are not currently certified as ASL court interpreters. The pilot is intended to expand language access for Deaf and hard of hearing court users, while supporting the development of a qualified ASL court interpreter workforce.  Court Adoption and Permanency Month Proposal: The council will consider proclaiming November 2026 to be Adoption and Permanency Month, with a special focus on the work of juvenile courts to support guardianship as a pathway to a permanent placement. In 2025, approximately 10% of minors who exited foster care were through a legal guardianship. Grant Funding for Court Appointed Special Advocates: The council will consider approving the allocation of $19.9 million in grant funding for the California Court Appointed Special Advocate Association. The funding will support the recruitment and training of volunteers to advocate for children under the jurisdiction of a juvenile court.  The complete council meeting agenda and council reports are posted to the California Courts Meeting Information Center. A link to the live webcast of the meeting will be on the California Courts website on the day of the meeting.  https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/news/year-review-california-supreme-court-2025-2026 Year in Review: California Supreme Court 2025-2026Martin.Novitski Mon, 10/05/2026 - 10:53 News Release Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero has emphasized that the California judiciary works in concert to make justice accessible to all. That collaboration was especially evident during the Supreme Court’s September 2025–August 2026 court year. With the high court having a temporarily vacant seat following the October 2025 retirement of Justice Martin Jenkins, 42 Court of Appeal justices served as pro tempore justices in cases it decided last year. Representing all six appellate districts, these justices participated in cases involving the right to bail, tort liability for drug manufacturers, and peremptory challenges to judges, among other issues of statewide importance. The California Supreme Court hears argument in August 2026, with a justice pro tempore participating. “The past year once again demonstrated how all levels of the judicial branch, and judges across the state, work together to ensure that cases are resolved fairly and efficiently,” said Chief Justice Guerrero. “The Supreme Court benefits immeasurably from the insights and perspectives of the Court of Appeal justices who serve with us. On behalf of the entire court, I thank them for their valuable contributions.” The court filed 52 majority opinions during the 2025–2026 court year. (See chart and “Notable Decisions” below.) The court received 5,613 filings, including 3,470 petitions for review, and resolved 5,500 filings, including 3,480 petitions for review.   Justice Martin Jenkins retired in October 2025. Retirement of Justice Jenkins Justice Martin Jenkins retired in October 2025. Justice Jenkins’s five years with the court represented the capstone of a judicial career that began in 1989 and included more than a decade at the federal district court (1997–2008) and a similar tenure at the First District Court of Appeal (2008–2019). On his retirement, Chief Justice Guerrero described Justice Jenkins, the first openly gay justice and the third African-American man to serve on the court, as “a constant source of inspiration.” Passings Former Justice Joyce Kennard died in August 2026. Justice Kennard served on the court from 1989 until her retirement in 2014. The second woman and the first person of Asian descent to be appointed to the court, Justice Kennard was well-known for her independence and her intellectual rigor. At Justice Kennard’s final oral argument session, former Justice Marvin Baxter said, “Whether they agree or disagree with her on particular cases, her colleagues know she has given each and every one her thoughtful, sincere, and scholarly attention.”  The court will hold an in memoriam session later this court year to recognize Justice Kennard and her impact on the law. At its November 2025 oral argument session, the court honored the late Justice Joseph Grodin, who served on the court between 1982 and 1987 and died in April 2025. Speakers offering tributes included former Chief Supervising Attorney Jake Dear, who had served as a staff attorney to Justice Grodin and described him as both an “excellent justice” and an “extraordinary man.” Dear, who worked at the court for more than four decades and served as chief supervising attorney from 2007 until his retirement in 2023, passed away in June 2026. Chief Justice Guerrero paid tribute to Dear’s service, noting that “Jake was more than just a brilliant attorney. He cared deeply about the court as an institution, including all of his coworkers. Through the connections he made, generations of attorneys benefited from his sincerity, curiosity, intelligence, and good humor.” Special Sessions The court convened two special oral argument sessions during the 2025–2026 court year.  The first was an October 2025 outreach session at Colton Hall in Monterey, where California’s first constitution was drafted in 1849. The court’s outreach sessions provide students at locations across the state with an opportunity to interact with the justices and watch oral arguments in person. The second special session was held in August 2026 in San Francisco. The justices heard oral argument in two cases, Cervantes v. Bianco and Bonta v. Bianco, arising out of the Riverside County sheriff’s seizure of several hundred thousand ballots cast in that county at the November 2025 statewide special election. The court issued decisions in both cases in September 2026. Notable Decisions The court’s 52 decisions last court year were evenly split between civil and criminal cases. Notable decisions included: J.O. v. Superior Court, decided in May, addressed the abuse of peremptory challenges under Code of Civil Procedure section 170.6. This statute allows a party or an attorney to disqualify a judge from a case by filing an affidavit or making a sworn statement declaring that the judge is prejudiced against them or their interests. The unanimous decision in J.O. overruled past precedent to the extent it had concluded that abusive “blanket” challenges to judges under section 170.6 did not substantially impair the functioning of the courts and that courts could not entertain as-applied challenges to alleged blanket abuses of the disqualification procedure. Drawing upon the multi-step test used to ascertain whether a peremptory challenge to a prospective juror was influenced by discrimination, the court adopted a similar inquiry for courts to distinguish between valid section 170.6 challenges and bad faith blanket challenges. Several decisions rendered during the past year addressed issues arising under the Racial Justice Act (the RJA), a statute that provides avenues for relief when criminal proceedings are tainted by racial bias. In March, the court heard reargument in four cases — People v. Bankston, People v. Barrera, People v. Chhuon and Pan, and People v. Demolle — to allow for further consideration of the RJA issues presented in each matter. One of the issues addressed at reargument concerned whether a violation of the RJA automatically requires reversal of the judgment in a direct appeal, or whether such a violation can be found harmless. The five-justice majority opinion in Bankston concluded that a violation of the RJA based on the use of allegedly racially discriminatory language will not necessarily result in reversal, at least in cases in which the judgment was entered before the RJA’s effective date. Instead, the majority determined, this type of RJA violation may be found harmless if the People establish beyond a reasonable doubt that it did not contribute to the verdict.  In re Kowalczyk presented important questions regarding the right to bail guaranteed under the state Constitution. The court unanimously concluded that a court may deny bail only in certain limited circumstances specifically described in the state Constitution, and that when these circumstances do not exist “and a court finds it necessary to condition pretrial release on posting monetary bail, a court must set bail in a reasonable amount based on an individualized assessment of the totality of the circumstances.” By a 6–1 margin, the court held in Gilead Tenofovir Cases that a drug manufacturer that sold a nondefective drug product could not be held liable in negligence for not taking additional steps to develop, secure regulatory approval for, and then market another, allegedly safer drug as a substitute. The majority opinion determined that the connection between the drug manufacturer’s decisions and any injury to plaintiffs implicated “a speculative chain of intervening events and discretionary decisions by third parties that are neither foreseeable in any concrete sense nor derivative of the manufacturer’s conduct.” The majority also expressed concern that imposing liability for not developing an assertedly safer substitute could skew drug manufacturers’ incentives and deter innovation. Justice Kelli Evans and Justice Leondra Kruger listen to oral argument. In Family Violence Appellate Project v. Superior Court, the court confronted the statewide shortage of official court reporters responsible for creating an official verbatim record of trial court proceedings, which is necessary for many appeals to be heard on their merits. In a unanimous opinion, the court held that, if an official court reporter is unavailable and a litigant is unable to afford to hire a private court reporter, trial courts are required to use electronic recording to create an official verbatim record. The court relied on the common law in forma pauperis doctrine, which functions to ensure indigent litigants have meaningful access to justice notwithstanding their financial circumstances. It concluded that this doctrine prevailed over a statute prohibiting trial courts from employing electronic recording to create an official verbatim record, and that electronic recording must be used in appropriate circumstances to provide indigent litigants with meaningful access to the appellate process. Judicial Ethics, the State Bar, and Attorney Admissions In June 2026, the court approved new rule 9.81 of the California Rules of Court to govern the composition, duties, and procedures of the Supreme Court’s Advisory Committee on the Code of Judicial Ethics. The advisory committee, which the court created in 1995 and had previously met on an informal and irregular basis, considers and offers recommendations to the court regarding possible amendments to the California Code of Judicial Ethics and its commentary. The new court rule sets forth the committee’s membership requirements, terms of service for members, and procedures for considering potential amendments to the code and its commentary, and further requires the committee to meet at least once each year. The court also considered numerous requests by the State Bar to approve changes to the California Rules of Court and Rules of Professional Conduct for attorneys. One of the requests approved by the court requires attorneys to annually reaffirm their oath to “strive to conduct [themselves] at all times with dignity, courtesy, and integrity” and to uphold the United States and California Constitutions. The court also approved a rule amendment prohibiting attorneys from soliciting the subjects of domestic violence restraining orders as new clients before these orders have been formally served, curtailing a practice that had provided the subjects of these orders with advance notice of their existence. Another proposal approved by the court broadened training opportunities for aspiring lawyers who are not enrolled in a law school and are instead studying law under the supervision of a law office or a judge. Rule amendments now allow these individuals to participate in the Certified Law Students program, through which they can represent clients on a limited basis, under attorney supervision. The court also took other actions pertaining to attorney admissions. In September, the court approved a series of amendments to the California Rules of Court that expanded the role of the State Bar’s Committee of Bar Examiners in overseeing changes to the bar exam and attorney admissions. The court later approved new guidelines developed by the committee that impose more rigorous qualifications standards for experts retained to help develop and review draft bar exam questions. And in July, the court agreed with a State Bar recommendation and determined that the National Conference of Bar Examiners’ NextGen Uniform Bar Exam will be used at future examinations, beginning with the July 2028 exam. The court further directed the examiners to develop a proposal regarding a California-specific test component that would potentially accompany the NextGen exam beginning in July 2029.   Summary of Key Court Year Statistics [September 1, 2025 – August 31, 2026]  Action/Category Number Opinions 52 Civil Cases 26 Criminal Cases 14 Death Penalty Cases 12 Filings 5,613 Petitions for Review 3,470                                 Civil Appeals & Writs 1,367                          Criminal Appeals & Writs 2,090                 Death Penalty Appeals & Writs 13 Original Proceedings 2,143                        Civil Writs & Other Matters 319                 Criminal Writs & Other Matters 916                                 Executive Clemency 27                 Death Penalty Appeals & Writs 3                 Death Penalty Habeas Corpus 6                                      State Bar Matters 872 Dispositions 5,500 Petitions for Review 3,480                                 Civil Appeals & Writs 1,353                          Criminal Appeals & Writs 2,114                 Death Penalty Appeals & Writs 13 Original Proceedings 2,020                        Civil Writs & Other Matters 316                 Criminal Writs & Other Matters 827                                 Executive Clemency 21                 Death Penalty Habeas Corpus 1 Death Penalty Habeas Corpus [Transferred] 1                                      State Bar Matters 854 Publication/Depublication   Court of Appeal Opinions Ordered Published 2 Court of Appeal Opinions Ordered Depublished (Review not Granted) 7 Court of Appeal Opinions Ordered Depublished or Not Citable(Following Grant of Review) 27 ​ https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/news/california-supreme-court-hold-october-7-oral-argument-san-francisco California Supreme Court to Hold October 7 Oral Argument in San FranciscoBalassone, Merrill Wed, 09/30/2026 - 12:51 News Release The California Supreme Court has announced that, due to unforeseen circumstances, its October 7, 2026 oral argument calendar, previously scheduled for hearing as a special outreach session in Redding, will instead be heard in its San Francisco courtroom. The court regrets that it is unable to visit Redding at this time, and it plans on conducting a special outreach session in Redding in a future court year. The oral argument calendar will remain as previously set by the court. Oral argument will be livestreamed on the Judicial Branch website, supreme.courts.ca.gov and on the California Courts Newsroom, newsroom.courts.ca.gov. https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/news/commission-consider-appointments-courts-appeal-10 Commission to Consider Appointments to Courts of AppealKaren.Datangel Mon, 09/28/2026 - 16:20 News Release The live webcast will begin on Oct. 9 at 9:30 a.m. Public documents for the hearings are available here. The Commission on Judicial Appointments will hold remote hearings on Oct. 9 starting at 9:30 a.m. to consider three appointments by Gov. Gavin Newsom. The commission will consider the following appointments: 9:30 a.m.: Judge Alexander Giza, as associate justice of the Second Appellate District, Division Three (Los Angeles) 10:30 a.m.: Judge Cindy Pánuco, as associate justice of the Second Appellate District, Division Three (Los Angeles) 11:30 a.m.: Judge Maria Daghlian Hernandez, as associate justice of the Fourth Appellate District, Division Three (Santa Ana) The hearing webcasts will be streamed live on the California Courts Newsroom. The state Constitution specifies that a gubernatorial appointment to the Court of Appeal is effective when confirmed by the Commission on Judicial Appointments.  The commission members who will consider the appointments are California Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero (Chair); California Attorney General Rob Bonta; Presiding Justice Frances Rothschild (for the Second Appellate District hearings)*; and Presiding Justice Manuel Ramirez (for the Fourth Appellate District hearing). Appointee BiographiesJudge Alexander Giza would fill the vacancy created by the retirement of Justice Anne H. Egerton, effective Oct. 11. He has served as a Los Angeles Superior Court judge since 2019. He previously worked as a partner and associate in private practice from 2001 to 2018. He received his Juris Doctor from the University of California, Los Angeles School of Law. Judge Cindy Pánuco would fill the vacancy created by the elevation of Justice Rashida Adams to presiding justice. She has served as a Los Angeles Superior Court judge since 2024. She previously worked in private practice as of counsel from 2023 to 2024, as partner from 2016 to 2019, and as an associate from 2009 to 2016. She worked in multiple roles at the Los Angeles Public Counsel including as vice president and chief programs officer from 2020 to 2023 and directing attorney of the Consumer Rights and Economic Justice Project from 2018 to 2020. She received her Juris Doctor from Loyola Law School. Judge Maria Daghlian Hernandez would fill the vacancy created by the retirement of Justice Maurice Sanchez, effective Oct. 2. She has served as an Orange Superior Court judge since 2009 and as an Orange Superior Court commissioner from 2006 to 2009. She previously served as a senior deputy public defender at the Orange County Public Defender’s Office from 1995 to 2006 and worked as an associate in private practice from 1992 to 1995. She received her Juris Doctor from Western State College of Law. Testimony and CommentRequests to testify or written comments on the appointment must be received by the commission no later than 5 p.m. on Oct. 2 (five court days prior to the hearing). Anyone wishing to testify before the commission must state that request in writing and include a summary of the facts on which any testimony or opinion will be based.   Submissions via email to coja@jud.ca.gov are strongly encouraged. Hard copies are not required.  If you would like to mail your request, you may also reach the commission at:  Commission on Judicial Appointments  c/o Chief Justice of California  Supreme Court of California  350 McAllister Street  San Francisco, California 94102  Attention: Secretary to the Commission   Guidelines for the Commission on Judicial Appointments are published in the appendix to the California Rules of Court and are posted on the California Courts website. https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/news/california-supreme-court-makes-appointments-state-bar-court-and-supreme-courts-advisory California Supreme Court Makes Appointments to the State Bar Court and to the Supreme Court’s Advisory Committee on the Code of Judicial EthicsKaren.Datangel Thu, 09/24/2026 - 08:01 News Release The Supreme Court of California today announced two appointments to the State Bar Court and its appointments to the court’s reconstituted Advisory Committee on the Code of Judicial Ethics. The court appointed Judge W. Kearse McGill as the State Bar Court’s next presiding judge to succeed current Presiding Judge Richard Honn, who is retiring at the end of October 2026 after serving nearly 25 years on the State Bar Court. Judge McGill currently serves as a judge on the Review Department, which is the appellate level of the State Bar Court. To fill the vacancy in the Review Department created by the retirement of Presiding Judge Honn, the court appointed Dennis Saab, who is currently serving as a judge on the State Bar Court’s trial-level Hearing Department in Los Angeles. The Speaker of the Assembly originally appointed Judge Saab to the State Bar Court in 2019. Separately, the court also made appointments to reconstitute its Advisory Committee on the Code of Judicial Ethics, which considers and offers the court recommendations regarding possible amendments to the California Code of Judicial Ethics and its commentary.  The court appointed Judge Samantha Jessner of the Los Angeles Superior Court to serve as the committee’s chair. The court appointed former Presiding Justice Laurence D. Rubin (ret.) of the Second Appellate Division, Division Five, to serve as the committee’s vice chair. The court also appointed the following judicial officers to the reconstituted committee: Judge George Abdallah, Jr., San Joaquin Superior Court Judge James Bianco, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Kevin Enright, San Diego Superior Court Judge Lisa Lench, Los Angeles Superior Court Associate Justice Tara Desautels, First Appellate District, Division Two Associate Justice Aimee Feinberg, Third Appellate District Associate Justice Charles Wilson, Sixth Appellate District Judges Abdallah, Bianco, Enright, and Lench and Justice Rubin have served on the prior iteration of the committee, and the rest of the appointees are new members. In June 2026, the court approved new rule 9.81 of the California Rules of Court to govern the composition, duties, and procedures for the committee. https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/news/memoriam-california-supreme-court-justice-joyce-l-kennard-1941-2026 In Memoriam: California Supreme Court Justice Joyce L. Kennard (1941–2026)Balassone, Merrill Fri, 09/18/2026 - 14:36 News Release Joyce L. Kennard, whose perseverance and professional excellence propelled her to become one of the longest-serving justices in the history of the California Supreme Court, has passed away. She was 85. “Justice Kennard’s life was a testament to resilience, and she brought that same strength to 25 years of service to this court,” said Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero. “She carefully analyzed the law, studied the facts, and strived to protect fundamental freedoms and promote the independence of the judiciary. Her rigor on the bench and her extraordinary personal journey continue to inspire attorneys and judges.” Justice Kennard was born in Indonesia to parents of Dutch, Indonesian, Chinese, and German descent. As a young child during World War II, she and her family were held in a Japanese internment camp. As a teenager, she had her leg amputated after developing a tumor and wore a prosthetic for the rest of her life. She immigrated to the United States and settled in Los Angeles, where she worked as a secretary while pursuing her education. She earned an associate’s degree from Pasadena City College, then a bachelor’s degree, a master’s in public administration, and a law degree, all from the University of Southern California. Justice Kennard began her legal career as a Deputy Attorney General in the Department of Justice. Later, she served as a Senior Attorney for Associate Justice Edwin F. Beach at the Second District Court of Appeal. Governor George Deukmejian appointed her to the Los Angeles Municipal Court in 1986, to the Los Angeles County Superior Court in 1987, to the Second District Court of Appeal in 1988, and finally to the Supreme Court in 1989, making her only the second woman and the first person of Asian descent to serve on the state’s highest court. During her 25 years on the court, Justice Kennard developed a reputation for independence and was known for her rigorous questioning during oral arguments. She retired from the court in April 2014. At the last oral argument session in which she participated, fellow Associate Justice Marvin Baxter described Justice Kennard’s life as “a successful effort to overcome extraordinary challenge and adversity” and noted her “record of achieving success against all odds.” He offered the following tribute: “ ‘Dedication’ is a word that perfectly applies to Justice Kennard. Whether they agree or disagree with her on particular cases, her colleagues know she has given each and every one her thoughtful, sincere, and scholarly attention. And drawing upon her own remarkable life experience, she has striven always for excellence, fairness, and the correct rule of law. This is her only agenda, and no one works harder to get it right. And for these qualities, she has earned the highest respect of her fellow justices.” In her letter to Governor Edmund G. “Jerry” Brown, Jr. announcing her retirement, Justice Kennard wrote, “Any success I achieved could have happened only in America, a land that encourages impossible dreams, a land where one can succeed against all odds.” The court will convene an in memoriam session in recognition of Justice Kennard during its 2026–2027 term.