Simpson, who was found guilty of armed robbery-kidnapping in 2008, believes that his attorney at the original trial, Yale Galanter, purposefully misled Simpson, especially when he advised him against taking a plea deal that would have landed Simpson with a minimum of two years in prison (which is a whole lot less than 33).
Simpson's lawyers are also arguing that Galanter was a bad fit because he himself was an actor in the 2007 robbery (which was an attempt by O.J. to reclaim lost memorabilia). Galanter advised Simpson before the robbery about its legality, and assured him everything he was doing was right by the law (some lawyer, right?).
Simpson's team is bringing 22 allegations of conflict-of-interest and ineffective counsel to the court, which has agreed to hear 19 of the allegations.
The hearing is not actually a trial or an appeal. It will simply decide whether Simpson deserves a new trial based on what appeared to be the worst-lawyering ever.