11th Circuit Judge Isn't Worried About Decline in Oral Arguments—But Lawyers Are
The discussion of oral arguments was a secondary point in Judge William Pryor's piece in the New York Times, but he touched on a tension that has been developing between lawyers and judges for years.
December 11, 2017 at 11:37 AM
10 minute read
Judge William Pryor, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (Photo: John Disney/ ALM)
(This is the first in a four-part series.)
Judge William Pryor Jr. of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit recently took on a topic that has long concerned appellate lawyers—the declining use of oral arguments to decide cases.
Hearing more oral argument—rather than relying solely on the briefs from lawyers on both sides—“would only delay decisions that should be speedy,” Pryor wrote in a Nov. 29 New York Times opinion piece.
The discussion of oral arguments was a secondary point in Pryor's article, but he touched on a tension that has been developing between lawyers and judges for years.
The decline in the use of oral arguments is dramatic and documented—at least for the federal appeals courts. Statistics available on the U.S. Courts website show that, 20 years ago, 40 percent of all cases were decided with the benefit or oral arguments, rather than on the briefs alone. By 2006, that percentage had dropped to 25 percent. In 2016, the most recent numbers available show the figure had dropped to 16 percent.
The circuits vary widely in their reliance on oral arguments. Pryor's court—the Eleventh Circuit in Atlanta, which handles appeals for Alabama, Georgia and Florida—is among the lowest.
The Eleventh Circuit heard oral arguments for 30 percent of its cases in 1996, 16 percent in 2006 and 7 percent in 2016.
Pryor's purpose in the New York Times article was to oppose a conservative law professor's plan to overturn President Barack Obama's judicial legacy by drastically expanding the number of judges on federal courts, adding hundreds more.
For example, Pryor said, Northwestern University law professor Steven Calabresi's proposal would multiply the Eleventh Circuit from 12 judges to 56. Pryor said that would turn colleagues who need to make decisions congenially into people who barely know each other and demote an attractive appointment to a part-time job. The opportunity to allow courts to hear more oral arguments was one of Calabresi's selling points.
“None of this is true,” Pryor said. Furthermore, the judge wrote, skipping the step of having lawyers appear before the bench to plead their cases in person saves their clients' money.
“Fewer oral arguments mean lower attorneys' fees for litigants,” Pryor said.
Ouch. That might sting a bit for the lawyers who make their living trying to persuade courts to overturn or uphold verdicts—and who generally believe they are good at it when given a chance.
Consider a white paper with this title: “Wither Oral Argument? The American Academy of Appellate Lawyers Say Let's Resurrect It!”
The group sent that 47-page report to U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. as presiding officer of the U.S. Judicial Conference in August.
“The Academy puts great value on oral argument,” the report said. “Oral argument is, after all, the only time where a party and its advocate can interact with the decision-maker. It is a time when the court's views on the issues are on display for the public and for clients, and counsel has the opportunity to address potential misconceptions or overlooked facts. In that manner, oral argument is the most tangible manifestation of the critical role that appellate courts play in the resolution of public and private disputes traversing our legal system.”
Former Georgia Supreme Court Chief Justice Leah Ward Sears, now a litigation partner with Smith, Gambrell & Russell in Atlanta, is one of the appellate lawyers who helped draft the white paper on oral arguments. She told the Daily Report in a recent interview that she agrees briefing is the most important part and that oral arguments only change the outcome in maybe five percent of cases. But those facts understate the value.
“It can change how you look at a case,” Sears said. “It helps the judges shape the opinion.”
Arguments can lead to “a more narrow ruling as opposed to a broader ruling,” for example.
And it is possible that oral arguments can flip the majority view, she added.
“I can remember being in the robing room after oral arguments when judges would say, 'Wow. I thought it ought to go this way, but now I see it that way.' It happens,” she said.
“My advice is, if you have an oral argument opportunity, take it,” Sears said.
Those opportunities increase outside the federal court system.
“Remember by far most of the litigation goes on in the state courts,” Sears said.
But that's another story.
Judge William Pryor, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (Photo: John Disney/ ALM)
(This is the first in a four-part series.)
Judge William Pryor Jr. of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit recently took on a topic that has long concerned appellate lawyers—the declining use of oral arguments to decide cases.
Hearing more oral argument—rather than relying solely on the briefs from lawyers on both sides—“would only delay decisions that should be speedy,” Pryor wrote in a Nov. 29
The discussion of oral arguments was a secondary point in Pryor's article, but he touched on a tension that has been developing between lawyers and judges for years.
The decline in the use of oral arguments is dramatic and documented—at least for the federal appeals courts. Statistics available on the U.S. Courts website show that, 20 years ago, 40 percent of all cases were decided with the benefit or oral arguments, rather than on the briefs alone. By 2006, that percentage had dropped to 25 percent. In 2016, the most recent numbers available show the figure had dropped to 16 percent.
The circuits vary widely in their reliance on oral arguments. Pryor's court—the Eleventh Circuit in Atlanta, which handles appeals for Alabama, Georgia and Florida—is among the lowest.
The Eleventh Circuit heard oral arguments for 30 percent of its cases in 1996, 16 percent in 2006 and 7 percent in 2016.
Pryor's purpose in the
For example, Pryor said, Northwestern University law professor Steven Calabresi's proposal would multiply the Eleventh Circuit from 12 judges to 56. Pryor said that would turn colleagues who need to make decisions congenially into people who barely know each other and demote an attractive appointment to a part-time job. The opportunity to allow courts to hear more oral arguments was one of Calabresi's selling points.
“None of this is true,” Pryor said. Furthermore, the judge wrote, skipping the step of having lawyers appear before the bench to plead their cases in person saves their clients' money.
“Fewer oral arguments mean lower attorneys' fees for litigants,” Pryor said.
Ouch. That might sting a bit for the lawyers who make their living trying to persuade courts to overturn or uphold verdicts—and who generally believe they are good at it when given a chance.
Consider a white paper with this title: “Wither Oral Argument? The American Academy of Appellate Lawyers Say Let's Resurrect It!”
The group sent that 47-page report to U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. as presiding officer of the U.S. Judicial Conference in August.
“The Academy puts great value on oral argument,” the report said. “Oral argument is, after all, the only time where a party and its advocate can interact with the decision-maker. It is a time when the court's views on the issues are on display for the public and for clients, and counsel has the opportunity to address potential misconceptions or overlooked facts. In that manner, oral argument is the most tangible manifestation of the critical role that appellate courts play in the resolution of public and private disputes traversing our legal system.”
Former Georgia Supreme Court Chief Justice Leah Ward Sears, now a litigation partner with
“It can change how you look at a case,” Sears said. “It helps the judges shape the opinion.”
Arguments can lead to “a more narrow ruling as opposed to a broader ruling,” for example.
And it is possible that oral arguments can flip the majority view, she added.
“I can remember being in the robing room after oral arguments when judges would say, 'Wow. I thought it ought to go this way, but now I see it that way.' It happens,” she said.
“My advice is, if you have an oral argument opportunity, take it,” Sears said.
Those opportunities increase outside the federal court system.
“Remember by far most of the litigation goes on in the state courts,” Sears said.
But that's another story.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllSupreme Court of Georgia Accepts 2 Petitions for Voluntary Discipline With 2-Year Suspension, 1 Voluntary Surrender of License
Trending Stories
- 1Read the Document: 'Google Must Divest Chrome,' DOJ Says, Proposing Remedies in Search Monopoly Case
- 2Voir Dire Voyeur: I Find Out What Kind of Juror I’d Be
- 3When It Comes to Local Law 97 Compliance, You’ve Gotta Have (Good) Faith
- 4Legal Speak at General Counsel Conference East 2024: Virginia Griffith, Director of Business Development at OutsideGC
- 5Legal Speak at General Counsel Conference East 2024: Bill Tanenbaum, Partner & Chair, AI & Data Law Practice Group at Moses Singer
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250