Will It Cost More to Hire an Expert on Appeals?

No. Because trial counsel who handle their own appeals must spend extra time attempting to get up to speed by learning the often obscure and arcane rules of appellate procedure, it is more economical to engage an appellate expert who deals with these procedures on an everyday basis and knows them well.

Moreover, it is not effective to attempt to save money and time on appeal by merely recycling the writings used at the trial level. “Appellate work is most assuredly not the recycling of trial level points and authorities. Of course, the orientation of trial work and appellate work is obviously different [citation], but that is only the beginning of the differences that come immediately to mind.

"For better or worse, appellate briefs receive greater judicial scrutiny than trial level points and authorities, because three judges (or maybe seven) will read them, not just one judge. The judges will also work under comparatively less time pressure, and will therefore be able to study the attorney's ‘work product’ more closely. They will also have more staff (there are fewer research attorneys per judge at the trial level) to help them identify errors in counsel's reasoning, misstatements of law and miscitations of authority, and to do original research to uncover ideas and authorities that counsel may have missed, or decided not to bring to the court's attention.” (Center For Biological Diversity v. County of San Bernardino (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 603, 621, quoting from Marriage of Shaban (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 398, 408-410, footnote omitted.)

"[A]ppellate practice entails rigorous original work in its own right. The appellate practitioner who takes trial level points and authorities and, without reconsideration or additional research, merely shovels them in to an appellate brief, is producing a substandard product.” Appellate attorneys who use material from prior proceedings must adapt the material to the altered focus of appellate review. Arguments must be tailored to the applicable standards of review and points that are irrelevant to the appeal must be omitted. (Seabago, Inc. v. City of Alameda (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 1372, 1387-1388.)