California appellate rules of court changed in 2025
California’s appellate rules keep evolving, and if you don’t keep up, you put your filings—and your reputation—at risk. Now is the perfect time to review the rule changes that you may have missed in 2025, and understand how they will affect deadlines, required forms, briefing strategy, and how filings are handled electronically in 2026.
Below are the most practical updates we’re seeing impact real cases in the California Courts of Appeal, the California Supreme Court, and (for limited civil/misdemeanor/infraction matters) the appellate division.
Key CA appellate rules updates at a glance
Here are eight key rules updates from the past 12 months that may impact your practice in 2026:
- Jan. 1, 2025: New trigger for the Civil Case Information Statement (APP-004) deadline in civil appeals
- Jan. 1, 2025: New amicus timing rule when no respondent’s brief is filed
- Jan. 1, 2025: Appellate division now permits optional Judicial Council form briefs (25-page cap); computer‑produced briefs remain capped at 6,800 words and require a word‑count certificate (Rule 8.883(b)).
- Jan. 1, 2025: Criminal record rules now expressly allow local rules requiring more “court records” and exhibit copies in the clerk’s transcript
- July 1, 2025: In certain streamlined CEQA appeals, briefing extension stipulations carry statutory timing/waiver consequences
- Aug. 13, 2025: Supreme Court amendments confirm: TrueFiling remains mandatory for counsel in all Supreme Court proceedings, with defined exemptions
- Sept. 1, 2025: New statewide requirement for courts to adopt generative AI use policies (if they do not prohibit generative AI use by court staff/judicial officers)
- Jan. 1, 2026: Appellate division oral argument rules expand the framework for remote appearances and limit certain remote appearance fee
1) Civil Appeals: The APP-004 deadline is now tied to the court of appeal case number
In civil appeals, the appellant must file a Civil Case Information Statement (APP-004) within 15 days after the reviewing court assigns the appeal a case number—and must attach a copy of the judgment or appealed order showing the date it was entered.
If the appellant misses that deadline, the clerk must send a notice giving another 15 days—and warning the court may impose monetary sanctions or dismiss the appeal if the statement still isn’t filed.
Why it matters: This is an easy-to-miss, early appellate step that can create immediate risk if not calendared correctly—especially when internal teams are focused on the record designation and fee/transcript logistics.
Practice tip: Calendar two dates: (1) the expected case number assignment window and (2) 15 days from the case number assignment date (not from the notice of appeal).
2) Amicus briefs: There’s now a firm timing rule when the respondent files nothing
Rule 8.200 now addresses a scenario that happens more often than people expect: no respondent’s brief.
- Generally, an amicus application is due within 14 days after the last appellant reply brief is filed (or could have been filed).
- If no respondent’s brief is filed, the application is due within 34 days after the respondent’s brief could have been filed.
- The same 34‑day framework also applies to an Attorney General amicus filing in that “no respondent brief” scenario.
The Advisory Committee Comment clarifies that “could have been filed” includes authorized extensions—and (for the respondent’s brief) also includes the 15‑day default notice period under Rule 8.220(a).
Why it matters: If you’re coordinating an amicus strategy, you need a reliable way to calculate the “outer boundary” when the other side simply does not participate in briefing.
3) Appellate division briefs: New optional form briefs (25-page cap) + existing 6,800-word limit (and certificate)
Rule 8.883(b) still limits a computer‑produced brief to 6,800 words (including footnotes) and requires a word‑count certificate (the certifier may rely on the word‑processing program). Effective January 1, 2025, Rule 8.883 also allows parties to use optional Judicial Council form briefs in certain limited civil appeals; if a party uses a Judicial Council form brief, the brief (including attachments) may not exceed 25 pages.
Why it matters: Word-count compliance problems are one of the fastest ways to get a brief marked “received but not filed” or kicked back for correction under the rule’s noncomplying‑brief provisions.
Practice tip: When you use TypeLaw to help prepare your brief, we verify your word count, alert you if it exceeds the limit, and automatically produce the required certificate to ensure that you’re in compliance with Rule 8.883.
4) Criminal appeals: Local rules may now require more record material—including exhibit copies
For criminal appeals under Rule 8.320, new subdivision (g) expressly authorizes the reviewing court, by local rule, to require the clerk’s transcript to include additional “court records” contained in the superior court file—and it may also require copies of exhibits admitted, refused, or lodged.
Why it matters: More required materials can affect cost, preparation time, and logistical coordination (especially where exhibits are voluminous or not readily reproducible). It also means counsel should pay closer attention to district-specific local rules governing record contents.
Practice tip: If a district’s local rules require expanded clerk’s transcript materials or copies of documentary exhibits, build that into your schedule early—especially in exhibit-heavy cases. When you already have trial court PDFs, TypeLaw can help you quickly assemble a paginated, citation-ready exhibit/record packet so your team can focus on the brief.
5) Streamlined CEQA appeals: Stipulated briefing extensions can extend statutory decision timelines and waive objections
In certain streamlined CEQA project appeals, Rule 8.702 now provides that if parties stipulate to extend the time to file a brief under Rule 8.212(b), they are deemed to have agreed that the statutorily prescribed time for the Court of Appeal decision is extended by the stipulated number of days—and they have waived objections that deadlines in specified Public Resources Code sections were exceeded.
Why it matters: In these accelerated matters, a “routine” stipulation is not always routine. It can have built-in statutory timing consequences, and it should be evaluated strategically—not treated as a purely procedural courtesy.
6) California Supreme Court: E-filing amendments confirm TrueFiling Is mandatory for counsel in all case types
On August 13, 2025, the California Supreme Court adopted amendments to its e-filing rules that went into immediate effect. The court “continues to require” electronic filing through TrueFiling for all documents filed in all proceedings before the court, regardless of case type.
The amended Supreme Court e-filing rules also state that all litigants (including amici) must file electronically through the court’s provider unless (1) e-filing is voluntary for them or (2) they are excused by motion.
A motion to be excused must satisfy the standards tied to Rule 8.71(d) (e.g., undue hardship, significant prejudice, or infeasibility of converting a document). E-filing remains voluntary for self-represented litigants and trial courts.
An operational detail practitioners sometimes miss: The Supreme Court of California’s e-filing page notes that official court correspondence and notifications (letters/orders) “will be sent … via regular mail only.”
Practice tip: Learn more about e-filing in this related blog post: 6 Important Rules for Electronic Filing in the California Courts of Appeal
7) Appellate division oral argument: Expanded remote participation rules and fee limitations
Effective January 1, 2026, Rules 8.885 and 8.929 add a detailed “Remote proceedings” structure:
- A party seeking to appear remotely must file the request within 10 days after the notice of oral argument is sent.
- The court may not require a party to appear via remote technology.
- The rules address public access, participant identification, and limits on charging certain parties videoconference fees (including parties statutorily exempt from fees and parties with fee waivers).
Rule 8.885 also states oral argument will not be set in Wende appeals where no arguable issue is raised.
Practice tip: If you are participating in a remote proceeding, dress professionally (and completely), thoroughly check all your technology settings, and do a run-through to confirm both what appears in your background—and that you are not a cat.
8) Courts and generative AI: A new statewide policy requirement (even if your case never mentions AI)
Gen AI continues to wreak havoc, as attorneys looking for shortcuts submit briefs with hallucinated cites, resulting in significant fines. But the reins are starting to tighten around AI policy.
Effective September 1, 2025, Rule 10.430 requires any court that does not prohibit generative AI use by court staff or judicial officers to adopt a generative AI use policy; the adoption deadline was December 15, 2025. In practice, these policies are court-by-court—so if AI process issues matter in your case, check the relevant court’s website (or local administrative orders) for its posted policy.
The required policies must include, among other things: prohibiting entry of confidential/ nonpublic information into public AI systems, requiring reasonable steps to verify accuracy and correct hallucinations, and requiring removal of biased/offensive content.
Why it matters for litigants: While this rule is aimed at court operations, the trajectory is clear: accuracy checks and confidentiality protections are becoming more formalized—exactly the areas where careless AI use can create real litigation risk.
Practice tip: When TypeLaw helps prepare your brief, a citation check is part of the process. We accurately format and hyperlink all citations to authority and the record in compliance with local rules, and flag any potentially hallucinated cites for you to review.
A practical compliance checklist for parties with California appeals
Given all the changes over the last 12 months, it’s wise to run a quick rule and local-rule deadline audit (APP‑004 timing, briefing limits, e-filing requirements, and oral-argument procedures) before your first major filing this year.
Here’s a quick checklist to keep in mind:
- Civil appeal filed? Track when the Court of Appeal assigns the case number and calendar APP‑004 due 15 days later.
- Considering amicus support (or expecting it)? Use the new “no respondent’s brief” timing rule to avoid a missed window.
- Appellate division briefing? Build around the 6,800-word limit and include the required certificate.
- Criminal appeal record issues? Check local rules early—more record material/exhibit copying may be required.
- Streamlined CEQA appeal? Treat briefing stipulations as strategic decisions with statutory timing consequences.
- Supreme Court filing? Assume TrueFiling is mandatory unless you qualify for an exemption or obtain one by motion.
- Oral argument in appellate division? If remote appearance is desired, calendar the 10‑day request deadline from the notice.
If you want to produce compliant filings for the California courts exponentially faster—and focus on your argument instead of every little rule change—TypeLaw is here for you. Contact us for help with your next brief or appendix.
