California DUI Defense Attorney — Accuracy Review of a 5-Page Case-Law Brief

We publish research briefs on narrow California DUI issues — tracking a defined set of appellate questions and reporting what moved, with every holding checked against the primary source. We need a California-licensed attorney who actually practices DUI defense to review one 5-page brief for accuracy before we publish it. The brief covers: People v. Yanez (5th Dist., July 2026) and whether Veh. Code § 23153 is a necessarily-included offense of Pen. Code § 191.5(a) — plus how it sits against Miranda, Binkerd, Meno (currently under Supreme Court review), Demacedo, and Machuca. What we're asking you to do: Read the brief (about 5 pages) against the cited opinions. Tell us where we're wrong — mischaracterized holdings, overstated claims, missed limitations, wrong procedural posture, anything a practitioner would catch. Tell us what a working DUI attorney would find missing or unhelpful about it. Flag anything that would embarrass us in front of a specialist. What we are NOT asking for: legal advice, an opinion for any client or matter, work product for litigation, or your name attached to anything published. This is an accuracy review of a research document, nothing more. Being upfront about two things, because they're material and we'd rather you know before you bid: The brief is AI-assisted research, reviewed by non-attorneys. That's exactly why we want a practitioner to check it. If AI-assisted legal research is something you object to on principle, this isn't a good fit and we'd rather not waste your time. We've already found and corrected three substantial errors in an earlier draft ourselves — including one that had the holding helping the wrong party. We're not looking for a rubber stamp. Finding more problems is the successful outcome here. Scope and timing: one document, roughly 1–2 hours of work. Written feedback is fine — a marked-up document, a memo, or a call, whatever's easiest for you. We're flexible on turnaround; a week is fine. If it goes well there's likely recurring work — we produce these regularly and would rather build a relationship with one attorney than post a new job each time.