High Court Makes a Rule Change Favoring Law Students
"A law student participating in a clinical program at a Georgia law school may be authorized to make oral argument if the supervising attorney of the program files a motion to authorize the law student to argue," the Georgia Supreme Court's new Rule 96 said.
September 10, 2019 at 05:23 PM
2 minute read
The Georgia Supreme Court has amended its rules to allow law students—with proper supervision and approval—to make oral arguments, as of now.
The high court—headed by Chief Justice Harold Melton—added a new Rule 96 to provide that under certain conditions law students may participate in oral argument, the justices announced on their website Monday.
The high court also made some other rule changes regarding page numbers and other briefing requirements, all with later effective date of Dec. 2, 2019, the first day on which cases will be docketed to the December 2019 term.
The law student rule change is the only one that is effective immediately.
"Law students authorized to practice under the Student Practice Rules, see Rules 91-96, or the Law School Graduate Rules, see Rules 97-103, may co-author briefs, indicating their status on the signature line," the new Rule 96 said. "A law student participating in a clinical program at a Georgia law school may be authorized to make oral argument if the supervising attorney of the program files a motion to authorize the law student to argue and includes in the motion the name of the student seeking to argue, the extent of the attorney supervision to prepare the student for argument, and a statement that the supervising attorney will be personally present and prepared to supplement any oral statement made by the student."
And one more thing: "The court must give specific approval for the law student's participation in the argument."
Coincidentally, the University of Georgia School of Law tweeted Tuesday that one of its students made a successful argument before a different court during a summer job.
"Congratulations to second year student Garrett Michael, who successfully represented a client during his summer externship with the Piedmont Judicial Circuit Public Defender's Office," the law school said. "Michael won a hearing, saving his client from a prison sentence and allowing the client to remain in treatment court."
This content has been archived.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 AllInsurer Not Required to Cover $29M Wrongful Death Judgment, Appeals Court Rules
After 2024's Regulatory Tsunami, Financial Services Firms Hope Storm Clouds Break
Trending Stories
- 1Chancery Claims Linking Fox Management to Defamation Liability Clear Hurdle
- 2NJ Managing Partner Survey Indicates Tougher 2024 for Many Law Firms
- 3Southwest Airlines Faces $100M Class Action Over Pay Periods
- 4Firms Saw Slight Declines From Last Year, but Merger Interest Remains High, Managing Partner Survey Reveals
- 5Medicaid Whistleblowers Awarded $37M Plus Interest
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