About Me

---

San Diego-based appellate attorney John Romaker combines appellate success with nearly 40 years of experience as a trial lawyer. John has handled numerous appeals in the California Supreme Court, the California Court of Appeal, and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. 

 Experience and Expertise

• Civil law: John has handled a wide variety of civil litigation matters, including real estate disputes, breach of contract, and professional liability cases.
• Family law: He has experience with complex family law issues involving high-value assets. He is a member of the San Diego Family Law Bar Association.
• Admiralty and maritime law: John has litigated admiralty and maritime claims and has published a paper explaining the legal liabilities of marine surveyors.
• Additional legal work: His background also includes lecturing, providing expert testimony, and serving as a Fee Arbitrator for the San Diego County Bar Association.
• Academic background: John previously served as an adjunct professor at California Western School of Law and has published scholarly articles on legal ethics and insurance law. 

Appeals are nothing like trials. In an appeal, the record is all that matters. A cardinal rule of appellate practice is, “If it is not in the record, it does not exist.” The record consists of the things that happened in the trial court: evidence, testimony, motions, and arguments. Not objecting to evidence in the trial court waives the issue for the appeal. Not making a complete argument on the record waives the issue for the appeal. Not making an argument, which might be a winning argument on appeal, frequently waives that argument for the appeal. Consequently, in a close case, the trial lawyer may want to consult with an appellate lawyer during the trial to preserve issues for an appeal.

The trial is not over until the judgment (or a final order) enters. However, after the judge (or jury) discloses the decision, there are many procedures which could effect the outcome of the appeal. In a judge trial, one procedure seems consistently misunderstood by trial lawyers. That procedure is a request for a statement of decision. Some lawyers (and parties) seem to believe that the request for a statement of decision is an opportunity to reargue issues in the case. That frequently results in an ineffective procedure. Some lawyers (and parties) do not file objections to the statement of decision, when it is first announced. Failing to file objections to a statement of decision also makes the process ineffective. The purpose of requesting a statement of decision and objecting to the statement of decision is to avoid “implied findings” by the appellate court. “Implied findings” is a doctrine which allows the appellate court to add things that the trial court did not say or do, but should have. Implied findings can be devasting to an appeal. Consequently, if the judge provides an oral ruling, a trial lawyer (or party) may want to consult with an appellate lawyer to assist with the request for a statement of decision and the objections to the statement of decision.

Additionally, a party may believe it was aggrieved by a judgment or order, but does not know whether an appeal could be worth the large amount of money it costs to present an appeal. Under such circumstances, the party should consult with an appellate lawyer to determine whether an appeal has merit. Many appellate lawyers will assess the merits of an appeal for a lot less than the price of an appeal. And, if the appeal has merit, then the consultation should reduce the price of presenting the appeal by at least that amount.