The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
First Appellate Argument...need halp!
Poast new message in this thread
Date: May 14th, 2013 12:10 AM Author: Aromatic field Just got told earlier today by senior partner that I'm arguing a case before state supreme court on Thursday. Taking questions and advice on how not to fuck this up. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2255467&forum_id=2#23194074) |
 |
Date: May 14th, 2013 12:10 AM Author: Aphrodisiac Nursing Home the lower court was correct because X (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2255467&forum_id=2#23194077) |
|
Date: May 14th, 2013 12:12 AM Author: Aromatic field Our appeal, bro. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2255467&forum_id=2#23194088) |
|
Date: May 14th, 2013 9:49 PM Author: Stirring house The lower court was incorrect because X. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2255467&forum_id=2#23200153) |
Date: May 14th, 2013 12:14 AM Author: Yapping theatre are you kike? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2255467&forum_id=2#23194102) |
|
Date: May 14th, 2013 12:14 AM Author: chestnut ceo tcq (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2255467&forum_id=2#23194107) |
|
Date: May 14th, 2013 12:15 AM Author: Aromatic field No, I'm technically Catholic, but I have a Jew-sounding name. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2255467&forum_id=2#23194109) |
|
Date: May 14th, 2013 12:16 AM Author: Buff church building double fault Prepare as well as you can, imagine every possible question, and just enjoy it man. This is the kind of cool shit most big law drones sit around all day wishing they had the chance to do. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2255467&forum_id=2#23194130) |
|
Date: May 14th, 2013 12:18 AM Author: Aromatic field Yeah bro, I'm pretty pumped. Kinda nervous because I'm still a n00b and they somehow trust me to handle this, but makes me feel legit too. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2255467&forum_id=2#23194136) |
|
Date: May 14th, 2013 12:19 AM Author: soul-stirring box office feces remember you're there to answer the panel's questions. don't worry about getting thru your prepared remarks and your talking points. answer the panel's questions directly and don't be an evasive asshole. welcome the panel's questions. don't worry about trying to go back to your prepared remarks. that's 90% of the fuckups people make. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2255467&forum_id=2#23194145) |
|
Date: May 14th, 2013 12:22 AM Author: Aromatic field Thanks bro. I just need to make sure I actually understand the facts of the case because it's bounced around a bit on appeals. I have a pretty good grasp of our legal argument because I've briefed similar cases. Just afraid I'll miss something in my short few days of preparation and look like a bumbling fucktard up there. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2255467&forum_id=2#23194176) |
|
Date: May 14th, 2013 12:25 AM Author: soul-stirring box office feces can you ask the attorneys on the case to moot you? doing a moot is the best way to prepare. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2255467&forum_id=2#23194204) |
|
Date: May 14th, 2013 12:28 AM Author: Aromatic field Yeah this is my plan. Senior partner who assigned it to me is leaving town on Wednesday afternoon though, so I have a cramped time frame. There are at least two other attorneys in the office who are familiar enough with the case that they could ask me intelligent questions. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2255467&forum_id=2#23194229) |
|
Date: May 14th, 2013 12:24 AM Author: Buff church building double fault Go on Oyez and listen to old Supreme Court arguments by the best oral advocates. Pretend you are John Roberts. This will help you get the tone right. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2255467&forum_id=2#23194197) |
|
Date: May 14th, 2013 12:26 AM Author: Aromatic field CR. Where can I listen to Daniel Webster recordings? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2255467&forum_id=2#23194212) |
|
Date: May 14th, 2013 12:28 AM Author: soul-stirring box office feces it's his first OA. he doesn't need to be roberts or win any oratory awards. he just needs to 1) not screw up and say anything stupid or not know something or get something wrong, and 2) provide solid answers to the panel's questions.
if he's the appellant and the firm is sending him out to do it, it's probably a loser case and it's not going to matter what the fuck he says, so he just needs to relax and enjoy the experience.it's not like brilliant advocacy is going to win this case. he just needs to be prepared on the record and the law. |
|
Date: May 14th, 2013 12:32 AM Author: Aromatic field titcr. It's our appeal and I was put on it because "the worst that can happen is we're right back where we started." This argument won't make or break the entire case either, so I feel better knowing that. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2255467&forum_id=2#23194282) |
|
Date: May 14th, 2013 12:26 AM Author: Chest-beating multi-colored gas station remember you can always find a sor that's de novo. state court judges are literal retards who swung 15K votes 3-4 years ago and don't know dick about the law.
take a legal pad and just write 2 sentences for each of your points on appeal. have 3 good cases for each point. if they nail you with something unique, take a sip of water and say "that's actually a great point. interestingly in smith v jackson this court actually held [insert one of your points] which of course the state sup ct upheld because the reasoning accords with the most salient caselaw." time is your friend and they won't have enough of it to nail you on your bs if you got the appellate rhetoric down pat. |
|
Date: May 14th, 2013 12:31 AM Author: Aromatic field The judges seem reasonably intelligent. All have T14 creds and at least one of them was a SCOTUS clerk.
I think all of our best arguments are made in the brief, so I doubt there are multiple cases not mentioned in the brief that would support our points. And I don't think they'll want to just hear a recitation of my point headings, right? |
|
Date: May 14th, 2013 12:34 AM Author: soul-stirring box office feces your opening should give them something different. i mean, the same thing, but put in a different way. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2255467&forum_id=2#23194291) |
|
Date: May 14th, 2013 12:39 AM Author: Chest-beating multi-colored gas station the 2 sentences should make a strong statement.
example in your brief:
II. Reversible error was committed because the trial court allowed appellee to introduce affidavit that was facially invalid.
your legal pad: The plaintiff in the lower court introduced an affidavit that was unsigned and was contradicted by their own expert. As a matter of law, even not holding into consideration the factual absurdity, the lower court's ruling cannot stand. SCOTUS held in Lewis v Tyrone that an unsigned affidavit is literally legal dogshit. |
|
Date: May 14th, 2013 7:26 AM Author: Aromatic field I like this suggestion, definitely going to try this. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2255467&forum_id=2#23195597) |
|
Date: May 14th, 2013 8:25 AM Author: Chest-beating multi-colored gas station gl bro, i wish i could watch. well, compared to doing my own work, not versus like doing coke and hookers. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2255467&forum_id=2#23195640) |
|
Date: May 14th, 2013 9:43 PM Author: Aromatic field I could send you a link to watch the simulcast, but then I'd outself. Sorry bro, but thanks for the help. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2255467&forum_id=2#23200119) |
|
Date: May 14th, 2013 8:14 AM Author: Titillating lay gunner if you need to make an argument that isn't supported by existing cases, just say that it's "PP confirmed." (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2255467&forum_id=2#23195635) |
|
Date: May 14th, 2013 8:19 AM Author: Hairraiser Pit Idiot The scholarship of the preceding years has prepared you for this moment; it won't let you down. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2255467&forum_id=2#23195637) |
|
Date: May 14th, 2013 8:20 AM Author: contagious jet-lagged church wagecucks You're probably not going to be able to predict what the judges will ask you, so just focus on knowing the facts of your case backwards and forwards. This is most crucial. You should be able to answer ANY random factual question instantly.
Second, as applicable, identify the 4 or 5 most central cases and have a very clear understanding of why each case should or should not control based on your facts. If you are the sort of person who likes to rehearse, this is where you can really rehearse an answer.
Third, if you can find someone on your trial team to moot you, that's a nice thing to do. It's unlikely they'll do a good job anticipating what the judges will ask. But just having the experience of thinking on your feet about the same facts and law that you will be arguing about is worth while.
Finally, know how you're going to begin. Some like to script an intro. Some don't. But at least have a plan for the first couple minutes.
That's about it. At the end of the day, you're either a natural on your feet, or you're not. |
|
Date: May 14th, 2013 8:28 AM Author: Chest-beating multi-colored gas station decent but somebody you work with on the case shouldn't "moot" you. ideally you send your brief and oc's brief to a smart appellate friend and have them grill you during a lunch you buy for them. they'll see issues your team is blind to, issues the judge will probably ask after doing a once-over of each side's brief. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2255467&forum_id=2#23195642) |
|
Date: May 14th, 2013 9:56 PM Author: mahogany drunken station keep reminding yourself that you're about a thousand times more familiar with the case than the justices. your role in oral argument is, as strange as it sounds, a teacher for the justices, so you shouldn't react combatively when one asks a question that seems to undermine your position. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2255467&forum_id=2#23200220) |
|
Date: May 14th, 2013 9:59 PM Author: claret stage pocket flask You have to prepare for two events. First, prepare your speech. This is the presentation you give if you don't get any questions. I prepare an outline with the key points to the argument and practice the speech. Now, you'll likely get questions, but you need a place to start and a place to come back to if you don't get peppered with questions the whole time. So your speech outline is important.
Second, make a list of the hard questions you are likely to get from the court. Draft the best responses to those. Discuss the responses with your colleagues. Revise. Practice giving these over and over. Make sure you are answering the question. As noted above, being evasive is terrible and judges hate it. I usually prepare half-page or one-page outlines for each of these hard questions responses.
Try to do a mock with both of these approaches. Have your mock judges let you give the speech with only a few questions. Then ask them to go again while asking you every question they can think of. You don't have a lot of time, but I think mocks are important if your answers and arguments are too far into the weeds, that will come out at mock.
As far as style, you are trying to have a conversation. You are there to educate and inform the judges in that conversation. Shouting, being indignant, etc., will backfire.
Good luck. |
|
Date: May 14th, 2013 10:07 PM Author: contagious jet-lagged church wagecucks This is very good advice for some people, but not for everyone. I, for one, do not like to script ANYTHING. I find that I end up focusing more on reciting the script than actually arguing in a natural, effective way. I do much better with a very abreviated outline, and no script of any sort.
But for a first timer, this is probably a safer approach. |