Description

Does your office have a blank 170.6 form ready to go for a certain judge? Stop doing that. A 170.6 peremptory challenge is no longer automatic: the California Supreme Court now authorizes courts to look behind your 170.6. The touchstone is whether your 170.6 is based on a genuine belief of prejudice—or mere grievance.

But first, a $3 million sanctions order against Quinn Emanuel in a big‑pharma advertising case, where an expert obtained key clinical data before it was disclosed and the firm failed to correct the record. The Northern District of California called out firm culture, and ordering the attorneys to prepare and lead an eight‑hour ethics MCLE.

• How a three‑million‑dollar sanctions order against Quinn Emanuel grew out of failures to correct prior statements about expert discovery.
• The court’s criticism of a “culture of bad ethics decisions” and the requirement for a bespoke eight‑hour ethics course.
• The facts in J.O. v. Superior Court, including 325 peremptory challenges aimed at removing a single judge from conservatorship matters.
• The new three‑step framework for challenging bad‑faith, blanket 170.6 practices and what counts as a prima facie showing.
• Strategic implications for lawyers who rely on peremptory challenges in small counties and specialized calendars.

What is your firm’s 170.6 practice like? Expect any changes after J.O.?