In the trial court, a lawyer gathers the relevant facts and crafts appropriate legal arguments. The trial lawyer does discovery, sometimes engages in discovery disputes, filaes motions, participates in settlement discussions, and ultimately may go to trial. A good trial lawyer must be a quick thinker, knowledgeable about discovery rules, motion procedure, the rules of evidence, and trial procedure.

An appellate lawyer does very little of this and instead needs different skills. On appeal, there is no discovery, no witnesses, (virtually) no motions, and no trial. Instead, the lawyer must review the appellate record in detail, analyze the applicable law, and identify and research legal issues. Appellate briefs are long; with a maximum length of 14,000 words (or approximately 75 pages). And appellate briefs are not simply reworked trial court motion papers.

• "[P]reparation of an appellate brief and record is far more complicated than merely 'repackaging' the trial court brief." (Center for Biological Diversity v. County of San Bernardino (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 603, 620.)

Accondingly, a good appellate lawyer must be a careful reader, an excellent legal researcher, and a persuasive writer.

An appellate lawyer needs a detailed working knowledge of appellate procedure, practice, and rules. This knowledge can come only from experience.

Appellate courts frequently reject arguments (and sometimes criticize appellate counsel) for failing to abide by the rules of appellate practice and procedure.

• “The one final judgment rule is ‘a fundamental principle of appellate practice’ [citation] recognized and enforced in this state since the 19th century [citations].” (In re Baycol Cases I & II (2011) 51 Cal.4th 751, 756.)
• “The absence of reasoned legal argument supported by citation to authority allows this court to treat the contention as forfeited. [Citations.] [¶] As we shall explain, [the appellant] makes several undeveloped arguments that we deem forfeited.” (Siskiyou Hospital, Inc. v. County of Siskiyou (2025) 109 Cal.App.5th 14, 39–40.)
• “Before we begin, a word on the briefing. [The appellant’s] briefs violate the California Rules of Court and established standards of appellate practice.” (Pulse Technology Consulting Group, Inc. v. Skowron & Bunning LLP (2025) 108 Cal.App.5th 824, 833.)
• “Thus, [the appellant] made a strategic decision in that prior appeal to ignore the missing transcript, which decision ultimately backfired when the reviewing court rejected her arguments and affirmed the judgment on the basis of the record it had. [Footnote.] [The appellant’s] approach in the prior appeal was problematic as it overlooked the venerable rule of appellate practice and procedure that it is an appellant’s burden to furnish an adequate record and failing to do so may result in affirmance of the judgment. [Citation.]” (Domus IV Investors, LLC v. Wang (2024) 106 Cal.App.5th Supp. 1.)
• “A more detailed account of the conflicting evidence is not provided here because, contrary to the applicable rules of appellate practice, [the appellant’s] challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence lacked the requisite summary of the evidence on point, favorable and unfavorable. [Citation.] Without such a summary, the challenge may be deemed waived, which is another way of saying the appellant failed to carry its burden of affirmatively demonstrating error. [Citation.]” (V Lions Farming, LLC v. County of Kern (2024) 100 Cal.App.5th 412, 437.)
• “This argument reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of appellate practice. What matters is whether the issue pursued on appeal was “litigated” in the trial court, and not whether the appellant cited the exact same authorities regarding that issue; here, the statute of limitations issue was squarely presented during the demurrer proceedings. [Citations.]” (Piedmont Capital Management, LLC v. McElfish (2023) 94 Cal.App.5th 961, 973.)

A trial lawyer who has litigated a case for a long time may think certain factual claims or legal theories or arguments are meritorious. And that position might be reasonable. But it also might be unreasonable.

There are many factual claims that are worth pursuing in the trial court but would fail on appeal.

And once the case is resolved—one party wins and another loses—the entire legal landscape changes. On appeal, factual claims must be evaluated in light of the appropriate standard of review. Legal theories might prove untenable after additional legal research. And additional detailed legal research might strengthen legal theories previously thought untenable.

An independent perspective by an appellate lawyer is often helpful here. In fact, appellate courts themselves have made this point:

• "[T]rial attorneys who prosecute their own appeals, such as appellant [and his law firm], may have ‘tunnel vision.’ Having tried the case themselves, they become convinced of the merits of their cause. They may lose objectivity and would be well served by consulting and taking the advice of disinterested members of the bar, schooled in appellate practice.” (Clarity Co. Consulting, LLC v. Gabriel (2022) 77 Cal.App.5th 454, 458, quoting Estate of Gilkison (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 1443, 1449–1450.)

A medical analogy might be helpful. Patients typically visit their family doctor for routine checkups and relatively simple medical issues. But if a patient has a serious or unusual medical problem, the patient ought to see a specialist, and most do.

The same is true in the legal world. Lawyers specialize in many areas: litigation of various sorts, estate planning, corporate issues, family law, bankruptcy, tax, and patents, just to name a few. Even though appeals arise out of existing trial court litigation, appellate work and trial court work are very different. Appellate work involves different skills, requires different briefing in a different type of courts, requires different knowledge of appellate procedure and practice, and benefits from a lawyer's experiences in appellate courts.