Amid Virus Concerns, SF Orrick Partner Preps for First SCOTUS Argument
"I'd be doing my best to avoid getting sick before a Supreme Court argument regardless, and now there's just added reason to be extra careful," said Brian Goldman, a partner in the San Francisco office of Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, scheduled to make his first argument before the court on March 30.
March 11, 2020 at 05:00 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on National Law Journal
Brian Goldman, a partner in the San Francisco office of Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, said he can't imagine going into his first U.S. Supreme Court argument without moot court preparation by Supreme Court clinics at Georgetown and Stanford law schools.
That isn't likely to be a problem for him March 30, despite the broadening impact of the coronavirus, which is curtailing some court activity across the country and forcing law schools to cancel in-person classes or outright close. The Supreme Court justices have been mum thus far on any virus-contingency plans for the oral argument session that begins March 23, and it's exceedingly rare for the high court to cancel arguments. Meanwhile, Supreme Court litigation clinics at the law schools at Georgetown and Stanford, taking some cautionary actions, are moving forward with efforts to prepare advocates for their upcoming arguments.
Georgetown's Supreme Court Institute has informed lawyers who are arguing in upcoming cases—and who are serving as moot court panelists—that the moot courts will be limited to the participants, guests of the advocate and institute staff. There will be no student observers, according to Debbie Shrager, the institute's director.
The Georgetown institute's moot courts are typically held the week before an argument, according to Shrager, and the institute is conducting moots for one side of every case this term. Although Georgetown has moved in-person classes to online and canceled all public events, "The law school and the university recognize the value of our program," said Shrager. "Our moot courts are private events, not public. You can only attend by invitation."
Orrick's Goldman said he has no hesitation about participating. "I'd be doing my best to avoid getting sick before a Supreme Court argument regardless, and now there's just added reason to be extra careful," he said in an interview Wednesday. "I think the universities have struck the right balance between avoiding unnecessary risk by keeping the number of people down while not compromising their missions or ability to serve the bar by canceling altogether."
Stanford students also have moved to online courses, Goldman said. The law school has invited its immigration and Supreme Court clinic students to observe the moot courts via video.
Goldman, who is arguing the immigration case Pereida v. Barr, won't be the only advocate flying from a distance to attend a moot court at Georgetown. Stephen Vladeck of the University of Texas School of Law has the first argument of the session in the consolidated military cases United States v. Briggs and United States v. Collins.
"I certainly would've understood if they had canceled the moots," Vladeck said. "But I think we're all taking our cues from the Supreme Court on this one. As long as the court is proceeding with the March session as scheduled, those of us who are arguing have to proceed with our preparations as normally as these decidedly abnormal circumstances will allow—circumstances that may change dramatically between now and then."
For some of the advocates at the March hearings, there is no travel risk because they live or work close to Georgetown. Williams & Connolly partner Lisa Blatt, for example, is based in Washington. She will argue the case U.S. Patent & Trademark Office v. Booking.com right after Vladeck on March 23.
The advocates themselves sounded curious about what the Supreme Court may do, if anything, about the March arguments. If past is prologue, the justices, traditionally reluctant to cancel arguments, will move forward with the hearings as scheduled. Whether the public will be able to view those arguments in the courtroom is a looming question.
Most recently, the justices in 2018 delayed arguments by one day to mark the national day of mourning for President George H.W. Bush. That triggered a rare Thursday argument. However, their steadfastness was on display in 1996 when they held arguments despite a massive snowstorm that shut down the rest of the federal government, and in 2012 during Hurricane Sandy, they held argument on one day, closed the next argument day and reopened for a Thursday argument.
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 AllFired Kirkland Associate's Gender Bias Lawsuit to Enter Private Mediation
Will Ohtani's 50/50 Ball Be Split 50/50? Fla. Court to Decide Owner of $4.5M Disputed Catch
Clients 'No Longer Need to Be Referred Out': Womble and Lewis Roca Eye Merger Benefits
Appellate Judges Grill Lawyer for Ex-Uber Security Chief Who Wants Conviction Tossed
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Dechert partners Andrew J. Levander, Angela M. Liu and Neil A. Steiner have stepped in to defend Arbor Realty Trust and certain executives in a pending securities class action. The complaint, filed July 31 in New York Eastern District Court by Levi & Korsinsky, contends that the defendants concealed a 'toxic' mobile home portfolio, vastly overstated collateral in regards to the company's loans and failed to disclose an investigation of the company by the FBI. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Pamela K. Chen, is 1:24-cv-05347, Martin v. Arbor Realty Trust, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Arthur G. Jakoby, Ryan Feeney and Maxim M.L. Nowak from Herrick Feinstein have stepped in to defend Charles Dilluvio and Seacor Capital in a pending securities lawsuit. The complaint, filed Sept. 30 in New York Southern District Court by the Securities and Exchange Commission, accuses the defendants of using consulting agreements, attorney opinion letters and other mechanisms to skirt regulations limiting stock sales by affiliate companies and allowing the defendants to unlawfully profit from sales of Enzolytics stock. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Andrew L. Carter Jr., is 1:24-cv-07362, Securities and Exchange Commission v. Zhabilov et al.
Who Got The Work
Clark Hill members Vincent Roskovensky and Kevin B. Watson have entered appearances for Architectural Steel and Associated Products in a pending environmental lawsuit. The complaint, filed Aug. 27 in Pennsylvania Eastern District Court by Brodsky & Smith on behalf of Hung Trinh, accuses the defendant of discharging polluted stormwater from its steel facility without a permit in violation of the Clean Water Act. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Gerald J. Pappert, is 2:24-cv-04490, Trinh v. Architectural Steel And Associated Products, Inc.
Who Got The Work
Michael R. Yellin of Cole Schotz has entered an appearance for S2 d/b/a the Shoe Surgeon, Dominic Chambrone a/k/a Dominic Ciambrone and other defendants in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The case, filed July 15 in New York Southern District Court by DLA Piper on behalf of Nike, seeks to enjoin Ciambrone and the other defendants in their attempts to build an 'entire multifaceted' retail empire through their unauthorized use of Nike’s trademark rights. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald, is 1:24-cv-05307, Nike Inc. v. S2, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Sullivan & Cromwell partner Adam S. Paris has entered an appearance for Orthofix Medical in a pending securities class action arising from a proposed acquisition of SeaSpine by Orthofix. The suit, filed Sept. 6 in California Southern District Court, by Girard Sharp and the Hall Firm, contends that the offering materials and related oral communications contained untrue statements of material fact. According to the complaint, the defendants made a series of misrepresentations about Orthofix’s disclosure controls and internal controls over financial reporting and ethical compliance. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Linda Lopez, is 3:24-cv-01593, O'Hara v. Orthofix Medical Inc. et al.
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