Legal Research & Writing : Week of 1 April

April 1

• Oral arguments are 35 minutes. Moving party goes first. Each do 10 minutes, then 2 rebuttal for moving party.
• Rooms --> Thurs: 5246 ; Fri: 3243
• The Nichols v. Progressive Northern Ins. Co., and Niessens case will be important. We'll need to distinguish this.
• Brief due 4/30 by NOON!
• Oral: 6:35 PM 4/17
• Best brief competition.
• Conference: 4/8 at 6:40
• This is an appellate-style oral argument: comfort in discusing the law with other lawyers and judges. Be comfortable with the facts of all the cases, and the law, of course.
• A lot of similarities with the brief: inform the court, then persuade the court. But this is not a re-hash of the brief; it's a dialog. Pick the two or three most persuasive arguments, and be prepared to answer tough questions.
• Goals: engage the judge's attention, motivate the judge to rule in our favor. Start with a story or emphatic point. Focus the judge's attention on the few aspects of the case that are most fundamental and determinative. And access the court's thinking: from the questions that are asked, figure out what doubts the court has.
• We go there for the express purpose of being interrupted: this is how we'll learn what the court really wants to know-- what is troubling the judge, and how to help him/her make a decision.
• Generally, you'd talk to the judge's clerk, sit in on arguments in the judge's courtroom, etc. Know what they expect in oral arguments, know what they like.
• Don't assume that the judge is familiar with the specifics of the case.
• Follow the script in terms of deference, etc.
• We will recite the facts (court will say yes, when we ask if they want this). We will state the theme of the case ("this case is about an irresponsible host who withdrew an offer...").
• The court will test our knowledge of law and facts: we want not to undermine our credibility.
• Questions: 1) in search of information (i.e., something you left out, or something needed for deeper understanding). 2) collateral questions (irrelevant or peripheral; do not tell the judge, "I'll get to that later--" address the question now). 3) confusing or unanswerable (it's acceptable to ask for clarification: this is the only time you should question the judge).
• Responses to questions: generally best to provide a short answer, and then a more in-depth explanation.
• Never interrupt a judge. Always respond to the question asked.
• Listen carefully to the questions. Answer, even if you think it will hurt you, but obviously, try to lead back to where you were headed, or make it support your thesis.
• Be on time. Prepare 8-9 minutes of content.