The Appellant's End Game: Some Thoughts on the Reply Brief and the Rebuttal Argument
We go as far as saying that in all but the most unusual situations, the failure to file a reply brief would constitute attorney dereliction.
July 27, 2018 at 02:30 PM
4 minute read
no time
- First, a reply brief should not be a condensed version or re-hash of the opening brief. You must be careful and selective and focus on the important points in opposing the respondent's submission – not merely refuting in a line-by-line fashion every argument made in that brief.
- The structure of the reply brief is important. It is not uncommon for a respondent's brief to follow the order its author believes presents its strongest point initially, rather than subscribing to the organization presented in your opening brief. Don't fall prey to adopting the respondent's approach. (Jay O'Keefe, “Tips on Drafting an Effective Reply Brief from Richard Kraus,” De Novo: Virginia Appellate Law Blog, Aug. 26, 2012.) That will often happen if you persist in trying to refute point-by-point the arguments put forward by the respondent. We recommend that you stick to the structure that you set out in the appellant's brief. (Thomas R. Newman and Steven J. Ahmuty Jr., “Reply Briefs: Getting The Last Word Has Its Limits; APPELLATE PRACTICE,” NYLJ, Nov. 2, 2011, at 3, Col. 1; Vol. 246, No. 86.)
- It is not necessary to try to distinguish every case that your adversary cites. (Id.) There is nothing more boring and less persuasive than to read page after page of attempts at distinguishing cases the respondent cited. Select the most important cases that the respondent cited and go after them; look at the respondent's table of cases for multiple citations of the same case – that will be the best clue of all as to what cases you need to reflect on.
- Maintain your theme. The theme is especially important in this last read. It should advance your cause in a simple, direct fashion; it should be woven throughout your reply brief from the preliminary statement until the very end. (Richard C. Kraus, “Crafting An Influential And Effective Reply Brief,” Appellate Issues: Council of Appellate Lawyers, August 2012, ambar.org/ajccal)
- Be especially mindful of using short, declarative, punchy sentences – short paragraphs as well. Shorter, more direct writing is more persuasive, and this is the time to be persuasive! Be careful about using acronyms and abbreviations in the reply brief without setting out what they stand for. You don't want to make the judges jump back and forth to your initial brief in order to get an understanding. Others have warned against the use of complicated jargon that can detract from the principal theme as set out in your reply brief.
- Seize the opportunity to call attention to respondent's failure to address an issue raised in your opening brief and consider whether such failure may be the basis for a waiver argument. (Damon Thayer, “How to Write An Effective Reply Brief,” ABA Sec. of Lit., Feb. 6, 2012.)
- Finally, the reply brief, however short, should be a stand-alone document. (Paul J. Killion, “Having The Last Word: The Appellate Reply Brief,” Certworthy (Fall 1998), at 9.) As we noted at the outset, many appellate judges have the habit of reading a reply brief first. If that is the case and there is abundant anecdotal information that this is so, the reply brief should state, clearly and succinctly, the factual points and legal arguments that support your position and entitle your client to relief. |
Reflections on Rebuttal
David B. Saxe is a former associate justice of the Appellate Division, First Department, where he served for 19 years before becoming a partner at Morrison Cohen. Y. David Scharf is a senior litigation partner at Morrison Cohen.
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 AllPost-Pandemic Increase in Live Events Prompts Need for Premise Liability Action
7 minute readGet Your Popcorn Ready: Sanctions Regulations Involving Artwork and Media Content in a Post-'Chevron' World
11 minute readHow Businesses Can Protect Themselves Given the Influx Nature of Non-Competes
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Why Kramer Levin Decided to Merge
- 2Judicial Ethics Opinion 24-61
- 3Decision of the Day: School District's Probe Was a 'Sham'; Title IX Administrator Showed Sex-Based Bias
- 4US Magistrate Judge Embry Kidd Confirmed to 11th Circuit
- 5Shaq Signs $11 Million Settlement to Resolve Astrals Investor Claims
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