How to Handle the Oral Argument Buzz Saw, According to Veteran Advocates
Experienced appellate advocates urge preparing for hostile questions, avoiding sustained arguments with judges and not taking the process personally.
August 27, 2018 at 06:35 PM
5 minute read
Before he was chief justice of the United States, John Roberts was a prominent appellate lawyer who in one case found himself on the wrong end of a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court ruling. Asked why the court ruled against his position 9-0, Roberts quipped humbly, “There are only nine justices.”
That story came to mind as readers digested an article about a Fulton County prosecutor who ran into a buzz saw of criticism from three Georgia Supreme Court justices during a recent oral argument. “Incomprehensible,” “scary” and “frivolous” were among the justices' descriptions of the state's position that a judge was right not to suppress statements made by a murder defendant who told officers multiple times he wished to remain silent.
To be sure, harsh skepticism from three members of a nine-member court doesn't necessarily predict failure. Experienced appellate advocates say they welcome questions so they can explain their position and alleviate any concerns judges have about it.
The Daily Report asked some appellate lawyers in Georgia how lawyers should handle judges who appear hostile to their position—without commenting on the recent Fulton County case at the state Supreme Court.
'Have someone play the hostile judge'
“It happens sometimes,” said Laurie Webb Daniel, who heads the appellate practice at Holland & Knight. At the U.S. Supreme Court, she recalled, “I had [Justice Antonin] Scalia on my case.”
Years later, she got similar treatment from one of Scalia's former clerks, Justice David Nahmias at the Georgia high court.
“It used to be Nahmias will hammer everybody,” said Daniel, but she noted that Justices Nels Peterson and Keith Blackwell are also tough questioners. (Nahmias, Peterson and Blackwell were the justices who expressed such displeasure with the Fulton County suppression argument.)
Daniel noted that Blackwell is known for posing “dreaded hypothetical” questions that twist the facts of the case at issue into unrecognizable situations.
But Daniel warned, “You can't just say, 'That's not my case.'”
Each matter depends on specific facts and law, but she said advocates sometimes can tell a justice that a particular hypothetical situation is so unlikely to occur that “it's not a justifiable basis for a rule of law.”
Daniel emphasized the importance of practicing arguments before moot courts of colleagues to prepare. “Have someone play the hostile judge,” she urged.
'You aren't there to defend yourself'
Amy Levin Weil, who headed the appellate division at the U.S. Attorney's Office in Atlanta for 18 years before going into private practice, wrote in an email: “I've only once been yelled at during argument—by a visiting judge from California who didn't understand what I was saying.”
“Instead of duking it out (which I wanted to do), when I realized he was never going to get it, I moved on. Even after his joining the unanimous decision in my favor, after 20 years, I'm still not over it.”
“You have to be very careful in responding to hostility from the bench,” added Weil, who is slated to argue a case at the U.S. Supreme Court this fall. “You never want to find yourself arguing with the court; it is important to be professional and show the judges respect. But it also is important to advocate for your client. Try to find common ground; perhaps the judge made a singular good point that you could acknowledge and either weave into your argument or contrast with the facts or law. If only one judge appears against you, see if you can persuade the other judges. If no one is on your team, move on to another issue or another point. Just remember that it is not a level playing field; you should not even consider responding in kind to hostile or aggressive language from a judge. You aren't there to defend yourself; you are there to advocate for your client.”
It's not personal
Leah Ward Sears, who served on the state high court for 17 years, including four as chief justice, wrote, “When dealing with judges who are hostile to or skeptical of your position, just remember that it's your position they don't like, not you, personally. So stay as cool, calm and composed as you can.”
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 AllEversheds Sutherland Moving After 36 Years to Smaller Atlanta Office
4 minute readPopulation and Caseload Boom Birth New West Georgia Judicial Circuit
7 minute readOn The Move: Moore & Van Allen Adds to C-Suite, Cadwalader Promotes Three in Charlotte
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Luigi Mangione's Attorney Gives a Master Class in How Not to Handle a High-Profile Case in the Media
- 2Trump, ABC News Settlement in Defamation Lawsuit Includes $1M in Attorney Fees For President-Elect
- 3Trump, ABC News Settle Defamation Lawsuit Before Depositions
- 4Call for Nominations: The Recorder and Law.com's California Legal Awards 2025
- 5The Week in Data Dec. 13: A Look at Legal Industry Trends by the Numbers
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