Cases are tentatively calendared for a particular argument session. Approximately 10 weeks in advance of the proposed argument session, counsel are afforded 10 days to notify the clerk's office of any scheduling conflicts (ECF entry is Notice re: conflict with proposed argument dates) and to file any motions which may affect calendaring of the case (i.e. motions to continue or motions to submit on the briefs). Any motion filed by counsel during this tentative calendar period, as at any time, must reflect whether opposing counsel consents to or will oppose the motion. Local Rule 27(a). The clerk's office will attempt to accommodate any conflict of which it receives written notice during the tentative calendar period. See Appellate Procedure Guide - Calendaring of Cases for Argumentfor more information.
Because any case may be decided without oral argument, all major arguments should be fully developed in the briefs. The parties may include in their briefs at the conclusion of the argument a statement setting forth the reasons why, in their opinion, oral argument should be heard. Local Rule 34(a).
As soon as possible upon completion of the briefing schedule, or within 10 days of tentative notification of oral argument, whichever is earlier , any party may file a motion to submit the case on the briefs without the necessity of oral argument. Local Rule 34(e). The motion must state the position of opposing counsel.
The clerk's office sends counsel a "calendaring notice" approximately six weeks prior to the argument date, advising counsel of the date of oral argument and the time by which counsel must register for argument.
Once a case has been calendared for a date certain, it will be removed from the argument calendar only for good cause shown for the requested relief and that the relief could not have been requested within the tentative calendar period. Local Rule 34(c).
An important part of preparation for oral argument is identifying those tough questions and developing persuasive answers to them. A confident, prepared attorney is far more likely to persuade a doubtful judge than an advocate who tries to duck the questions.
That said, an attorney who did not try the case has a special responsibility to be fully conversant with the record.
If not engaging on the topic the judge wants to discuss is irritating, refusing to answer her questions is much worse. Any case on appeal has weaknesses on both sides. If the issues were totally one-sided, the loser would not take the appeal, or would settle long before oral argument. Many inexperienced appellate lawyers, however, hear a question on their weak point and immediately try to avoid answering it—like a candidate at a political debate. Afraid the answer will reveal a fatal weakness, the attorney bobs and weaves. The judge, trying to get an answer to resolve his or her uncertainty, responds by repeating questions that tend to focus ever more narrowly on the point most damaging to the lawyer.
To come to court without complete knowledge of the record is to risk insult to the court —and disaster to the client. There is nothing revolutionary about this list. Other appellate attorneys and judges could add more items (such as do not refer to a judge by the wrong name—or the wrong gender).
Attorneys who tell a judge they do not know something that occurred at trial demonstrate not only incompetent performance but also disrespect for the court. The judges are trying to understand this case, along with the others heard that day. The attorney (except in rare circumstances) has only one case and should have total control of everything in the record. To come to court without complete knowledge of the record is to risk insult to the court—and disaster to the client.
The best, even if sometimes painful, approach is to give the direct answer right away followed by an explanation. The judge may not agree, but at least the dispute is now over the substance of the question, not the recalcitrance of the lawyer.
A judge’s questions often indicate what is bothering her or him about a case. This is an opportunity to deal with their concern and, hopefully, convince the judge—and perhaps others on the panel—to adopt the attorney’s position. A refusal to engage on the topics that the judge feels are important is at best irritating, and at worst may give the impression (rightly or wrongly) that the lawyer has no answer to the question the judge cares about.
Oral arguments are spoken presentations to a judge or appellate court by a lawyer (or parties when representing themselves) of the legal reasons why they should prevail. Oral argument operates by each party in a case taking turns to speak directly to the judge or judges with an equal amount of time allotted to each.
Typically, the Court holds two arguments each day beginning at 10:00 a.m., each lasting one hour. The days on which arguments are held are identified on the Court’s yearly calendar.
Answer their questions directly and use your roadmap and outline to find an appropriate place at which to continue arguing. When you have finished your argument, end with a clear statement of what you are asking the Court to do (a “prayer for relief”).
The audio recordings of all oral arguments heard by the Supreme Court of the United States are available to the public at the end of each argument week. The audio recordings are posted on Fridays after Conference. The public may either download the audio files or listen to the recordings on the Court’s website.
The “rule of four” is the Supreme Court’s practice of granting a petition for review only if there are at least four votes to do so. The rule is an unwritten internal one; it is not dictated by any law or the Constitution.
After the oral arguments have been finished, the court meets, in its conference room, to reach a preliminary decision about the outcome of each case. When the justices disagree, the greater number becomes the majority of the court on that case.
Typically, the Court hears cases that have been decided in either an appropriate U.S. Court of Appeals or the highest Court in a given state (if the state court decided a Constitutional issue). The Supreme Court has its own set of rules. According to these rules, four of the nine Justices must vote to accept a case.
Oral Argument: A Guide to Preparation and Delivery for the First-Timer. There’s a first time for everything. But when it’s your first oral argument in an appellate court, the task ahead can seem overwhelming. Your every word will be scrutinized.
Draft your introduction as you near the argument date, after you’ve done your weeks of advance preparation and after you’ve made your cheat sheet. Hold a moot court. The single most important thing you can do to prepare for an appellate argument is to hold a moot court. Ask three colleagues to serve as judges.
They should be litigators, but they need not have any expertise in your case’s subject matter—your panel won’t, after all. Provide the briefs and other relevant materials several weeks before the moot, which should be scheduled for several days before the actual argument.
Since you know those questions are coming, prepare your best answers to them ahead of time. For each, write out exactly what you would say in response. Work on your answer until you have a sound bite that you can deliver in fewer than 15 seconds. Write down your sound bite on your cheat sheet.
It also means not relying on your briefs, appendices, or other bulky materials during your argument, which will disrupt the flow of your presentation. Instead, put everything you want to have at your fingertips during the argument on four sheets of paper.
If a judge asks you a question with a tone of incredulity, stand your ground. The principle you’re urging may, indeed, produce a consequence that concerns the judge, but you’re there to explain why that consequence is acceptable—particularly if the alternative is conceding your core argument.
It means reviewing every case cited in the briefs, and knowing every detail of the most important cases: their facts, their reasoning, their outcomes, and how they support your position or don’t support your opponent’s position.
Outlines encourage rigid thinking. If you rely on an outline too much, you will be thrown off by questions and may repeat information or skip issues altogether. 2. Practice intense preparation. The single most-important component of a great oral argument, according to Glover, is preparation.
The single most-important component of a great oral argument, according to Glover, is preparation. It is imperative that you find the time. For every oral argument you must know four things: the facts, the law, your argument, and what you want. 3. Organize and practice your argument.
One of our committee's more popular social media posts related to the article "How to Prepare for Oral Argument" which was originally published in the Lawyerist on March 5, 2012, and republished on March 2, 2014.
In the article, author Sam Glover encourages litigators to use "modular" approach when preparing for oral argument. He argues that oral arguments are dynamic and preparation should mirror that. Glover suggests the following approach:
The Fourth Circuit hears oral argument at regularly scheduled sessions in Richmond, Virginia, and at special sessions scheduled throughout the circuit. Register to receive calendar and audio file updates:
The identity of the panel assigned to hear argument pursuant to IOP 34.1 is not disclosed until the morning of argument. The identity of the panel and a link to the audio file of the oral argument are posted at Listen to Oral Arguments the following business day.
Oral argument is an opportunity for you to have a conversation with the judges or justices who will decide your case. You want to keep their attention and make your points (even if you disagree with an assertion that they make) in a respectful, energetic manner. Speaking in a monotone—or, worse still, reading from a prepared text— will lose their attention quickly.
The most difficult part of oral argument is refuting your opponent’s strongest arguments. You may be able to obfuscate or avoid difficulties with your position in the brief (though that may not be a good strategy). But at argument, questions are likely to be focused on the weakest points of your position.
But the argument offers an opportunity to crystallize the key points in an advocate’s position, to answer questions that were not addressed or skimmed over in the brief , and to try to set the court’s concerns to rest. Thus, the best oralists use the opportunity as a welcome chance to speak with the judges or justices who will decide their case to be sure they understand the most important factual and legal underpinnings of their position. In presenting oral argument, here are what I consider best practices for effectively using the opportunity. 1
7 But some advocates disagree with this strategy. Alan Morrison, for example, urged against it because it can interfere with the flow of the argument as dictated by the questions of the judges or justices on the court. 8 At a minimum, have your own road map of essential points and ways to lead from one point to the other in case you get diverted by questions.
If the question seeks a yes or no answer, answer it, and then add any explanation that is needed to limit or qualify your response . This can be difficult if you are not sure of your theory of the case or the facts in your record. So again, prepare, prepare, prepare. Oral argument should be conversational— not rhetorical. Flourishes of rhetoric are unlikely to persuade, but answering questions in a professional, conversational tone can help the judges see you as an asset in their search for the right answer. If you are accepted because of your demeanor, precision, knowledge, and candor in response to their most difficult questions, you are far more likely to persuade them to the rightness of your position.
In a court of last resort and in intermediate appellate courts where the judges assigned to the case are announced before the argument, you can study them by checking for decisions they have previously issued that pertain to your case.
Sometimes clients question the amount of time required to prepare for oral argument. Try to explain that precisely because the time allotted for the appeal is short, advocates must be well-prepared so they can respond concisely with references to precedent and to the record.