May 20, 2026
Bench & Bar: May 20, 2026
Three columns from the Daily Journal's Perspectives section examine why a child safety conference was dominated by corporate liability concerns rather than product design, how citation verification rules now reach the bench itself, and why Uber's proposed constitutional amendment targets only plaintiff-side contingency fees.
In This Episode
I attended a law, AI and child safety conference. What I heard was shocking
Zachary N. Zaharoff of Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy reports that a Media Law Resource Center conference on child safety online was dominated by corporate liability strategy, not child welfare. Platform attorneys should expect Section 230 and First Amendment defenses to remain the industry's primary shield as these cases advance.
Bad AI citations: Crimes and punishments
Myron Moskovitz of the Moskovitz Appellate Team examines a California appellate case where fabricated citations ensnared both an attorney and judicial officers in the same proceeding. The attorney faced sanctions and a State Bar referral; the judicial officers did not. Citation verification now runs to the bench -- and sanctions exposure remains uneven.
Protect access to justice and be munificent
Arash Homampour and Nicholas Rowley of Trial Lawyers for Justice argue that Uber's proposed California constitutional amendment would cap plaintiff-side contingency fees in motor vehicle and products liability cases while leaving defense arrangements untouched. The Legislative Analyst's Office projects reduced filings and higher Medi-Cal costs.
Read all three columns and browse the full Perspectives section at dailyjournal.com.
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
Jeremy_Ellis@dailyjournal.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 213-229-5424
Send a letter to the editor:
Email: letters@dailyjournal.com