Setting a case for Supreme Court oral argument is usually a straightforward process. Then there’s Stancil v. Superior Court.
Here’s the way it usually works: After a majority of justices have indicated their preliminary agreement with a case’s calendar memorandum (read, draft opinion), the Chief Justice puts the case on a preargument conference. If at the conference a majority agrees the case is ready to be heard, and after giving counsel a chance to inform the court of conflicts, it is set for argument. (See pp. 21-22, 35-36 here; see also here.)
In Stancil, an unlawful detainer matter (see here), everything seemed routine for a while. In November, probably after a thumbs-up at a preargument conference, the court sent its oral argument letter asking counsel for any dates on which the case should not be heard (see here and here), and it got no responses. But then things went off the normal track.
In early December, after learning that one of Stancil’s attorneys had been suspended by the State Bar, the court wrote to the suspended attorney’s co-counsel asking them to “confirm your readiness to present argument in this case on behalf of the petitioner.” Five days after receiving an email from co-counsel indicating they weren’t actually Stancil’s lawyers, the court sent them another letter, this time requesting “a declaration filed under penalty of perjury that your firm has never represented Mr. Stancil or, in the alternative, verification of your notice that you withdrew from representation of Mr. Stancil.”
Three days later, amicus curiae counsel volunteered to argue in support of Stancil’s position and the court sent yet another letter to now-possibly-not-co-counsel (hereafter NPNCC), again asking for that declaration and also asking with apparent exasperation, “Who represents Mr. Stancil in this appeal?”
Things didn’t get any better. NPNCC sent the court a stipulation for withdrawal of attorneys with a statement that they had just that day provided the stipulation to Stancil. The court was not amused. Noting review had been granted in March 2019 but that Stancil was given the stipulation “only after the court sought [NPNCC’s] clarification regarding its representation of Mr. Stancil,” the court said that any motion to withdraw — with a statement “of good cause . . . and of what steps counsel has taken to avoid reasonably foreseeable prejudice to the client’s rights” — was due in three days.
One NPNCC submitted a declaration that, according to the court, said she “was unable to dispute — and in fact does not dispute — that she continues to represent Mr. Stancil.” The court gave another three days for NPNCC to “confirm that [NPNCC], as counsel in this matter, will present oral argument or . . . has arranged other counsel to present argument for [NPNCC] on behalf of Mr. Stancil.”
NPNCC then immediately responded that its “lawyers will present argument on behalf of Stancil.” The court that same day — December 15 — wrote that, because NPNCC hadn’t reported any conflict dates as requested in the court’s oral argument letter the previous month, “[t]he court therefore concludes [NPNCC] is available for all upcoming oral argument dates, including January 2021.”
Stancil was not on the January calendar. To give the required 20-day notice of oral argument, the court should be announcing its February calendar this week. It will be interesting to see if Stancil is scheduled.