Seek reversal? Request oral argument.

Although the Superior Court affirms over 80% of the time, the statistics show an increased percentage of reversals in cases argued before the assigned panel. For each of the calendar years 2007 – 2011, roughly 10% of the cases submitted on briefs resulted in reversals. In contrast, during the same period, roughly 16% to 19% of the appeals resulted in reversals. [Source: “Advocacy in the Superior Court: Request Oral Argument or Submit on Briefs?” by Judge Christine Donohue, in Appellate Advocacy at the Movies, (2012)]

One possible explanation for this fact is that the judges become more familiar with the argued cases. If a case is argued, a judge first reads the briefs, listens to and participates in argument, and then meets with the other panel members thereafter to discuss the case and to cast a preliminary vote. After the case is assigned for a decision, the judges give the case to a clerk, who prepares a preliminary decision, which is then circulated to the panel members for further review and a final vote. During the process, the judges have five points of contact: (1) preparation for argument, (2) oral argument, (3) preliminary vote discussion, (4) the written decision, and (5) the final vote.

If a case is not argued, the judges have far less contact with the case. A judge may discuss it with his/her clerks and with the other panel members, but that contact is “truncated.” [Id.]

If you seek reversal, you should request oral argument.

Posted in Uncategorized

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

To blog of legalese

“The time has come,” the lawyer said,
“To blog of legalese:
Of headings—and quotes—and citations—
Of orders and decrees—
And why law prose is frightfully dull—
And whether the brief will please.”

In 35 years, progress?

“There are two things wrong with almost all legal writing. One is its style. The other is its content. That, I think about covers the ground.” Fred Rodell, Goodbye to Law Reviews, 23 Va. L. Rev. 38, 38 (1936–1937) “Legal writing by federal judges and the lawyers who appear before them is today generally serviceable, in the sense of being pretty clearly written, pretty careful, businesslike, grammatical.” Richard A. Posner, Legal Writing Today, 8 Scribes J. Leg. Writing 35, 35 (2001–2002) (emphasis in original).