Judge Anne Costin

Judge Anne Costin is a newly appointed jurist at the San Francisco Superior Court, having been sworn in February 2024 following her December 2023 appointment by Governor Gavin Newsom. Her entire pre-bench career was devoted to plaintiff-side employment litigation — first as an associate at the Dolan Law Firm (2007–2013), a firm well known for plaintiff-side civil rights and personal injury work, and then as the founder of Costin Law Inc. (2013 onward), where she exclusively represented employees in discrimination, harassment, and retaliation matters. This is not a judge who came up through corporate defense, government, or neutral ADR work; her professional identity was built advocating for workers against employers. Attorneys should treat this background as a meaningful signal about her instinctive framing of employment and civil rights disputes. Beyond litigation, Judge Costin served as an adjunct professor at USF School of Law from 2011 to 2017, teaching alongside her active practice. This academic dimension suggests a judge who values doctrinal precision, clear legal reasoning, and well-organized written submissions. Professors tend to reward structured arguments and penalize sloppy analysis. Her USF J.D. and UC Santa Cruz undergraduate background reflect a Bay Area progressive academic tradition, consistent with her Newsom appointment and Democratic affiliation. Because Judge Costin was sworn in only in early 2024, there is no public ruling history, no appellate track record, and no attorney observation data available at this time. All assessments below are necessarily inferential, drawn from career trajectory, appointment context, and the institutional culture of the San Francisco Superior Court. Attorneys should treat this profile as a baseline to be updated aggressively as courtroom experience accumulates. Her term runs through January 4, 2027, giving her time to develop a distinct judicial identity that may diverge from these initial inferences.

Given Judge Costin's exclusive plaintiff-side employment background, defense-side attorneys in employment, discrimination, harassment, or retaliation cases should be especially rigorous in their briefing. Avoid arguments that minimize employee experiences or rely heavily on employer-favorable credibility determinations without strong evidentiary support — she has spent her career identifying exactly those arguments and countering them. Instead, anchor defense arguments in clear statutory text, binding precedent, and undisputed facts. Concede what is concedable; she will likely see through overreach. Plaintiff-side employment attorneys, conversely, should not assume automatic sympathy — judges who come from a specialty often hold practitioners in that specialty to a higher standard and are alert to weak cases dressed up as strong ones. For non-employment civil matters, her academic background at USF Law is the most useful signal. Structure briefs with clear headings, a tight statement of the legal standard, and a methodical application of facts to law. Avoid rhetorical flourishes in place of analysis. Given her teaching background, she is likely to appreciate when attorneys acknowledge contrary authority and distinguish it honestly rather than ignoring it. At hearings, be prepared to engage substantively on the law — do not assume a tentative ruling will go unchallenged or that oral argument is merely ceremonial. Because she is newly on the bench, local San Francisco Superior Court norms and department-specific standing orders should be reviewed carefully before any appearance. New judges often adopt the administrative practices of their department predecessors while developing their own substantive preferences. Check for any standing orders she has issued and monitor the San Francisco Bar Association and local listservs for early attorney feedback as her courtroom practice develops.

• critical

  Review Department Standing Orders Immediately

  As a new judge, she may have issued or adopted standing orders governing briefing schedules, page limits, hearing procedures, and meet-and-confer requirements. Failure to comply with standing orders is a fast path to sanctions or adverse rulings with any judge, and especially with a former law professor who values procedural precision.

• critical

  Audit Your Brief for Doctrinal Rigor

  Before filing any motion or opposition, ensure every legal proposition is supported by cited authority, every factual assertion is tied to the record, and contrary authority is acknowledged and distinguished. Her teaching background makes her a careful reader who will notice analytical gaps.

• critical

  Prepare Employment Law Arguments with Extra Depth

  In any employment, discrimination, harassment, or retaliation matter, assume the judge has deep substantive knowledge of FEHA, Title VII, and related California employment statutes. Do not over-explain basics; instead, focus on the specific factual and legal distinctions that drive your case.

• important

  Monitor Attorney Community Feedback Channels

  Because no ruling history exists, subscribe to San Francisco Bar Association updates, local litigation listservs, and services like Trellis or CourtListener for her first rulings. Early data points will be disproportionately valuable for calibrating future strategy.

• important

  Prepare for Active Bench Questioning

  Former law professors often conduct Socratic-style oral argument, probing the weaknesses of each side's position. Prepare to answer hard questions about your own case's vulnerabilities, not just to advocate your strongest points.

• Nice

  Research Her Predecessor's Department Norms

  She fills the vacancy created by Judge Gail Dekreon's retirement. Research how Judge Dekreon ran her department — courtroom culture, preferred hearing formats, and administrative practices — as Judge Costin may have adopted similar norms during her transition.

• ›Arrive fully prepared to engage on the substantive law — do not treat oral argument as a formality or assume a tentative ruling is final without being ready to address the court's reasoning directly.
• ›Cite your record and legal authority precisely; a former law professor and plaintiff's attorney will notice when citations are imprecise, paraphrased inaccurately, or taken out of context.
• ›Be respectful and professional in all references to opposing parties and counsel — her plaintiff-side background means she is likely sensitive to dismissive or demeaning characterizations of employees, claimants, or vulnerable parties.
• ›Do not misrepresent the state of the law or omit controlling adverse authority; acknowledge it and explain why it does not control your case.
• ›Follow all courtroom administrative protocols carefully, including check-in procedures, tentative ruling systems, and any electronic filing requirements specific to her department.
• ›If you are defense counsel in an employment matter, avoid arguments that appear to minimize or trivialize the plaintiff's experience — frame your defense in terms of legal standards and evidentiary sufficiency, not credibility attacks on the employee.