In the United States, practical implementation of oral arguments in the Courts of Appeals often goes underutilized, an underappreciation that many legal professionals should take note of. The potency of this tool is highlighted in this analysis by Carlton Fields via JD Supra.
In many federal courts of appeals, the statement for the oral argument ideally holds a central position within a brief. It is frequently the first substantial declaration a judge encounters, thereby emphasising its significance. Despite this, an overwhelmingly large number of advocates seemingly gloss over this potentially impactful section, defaulting to a generic oral argument statement.
Such an oversight presents missed opportunities for lawyers aiming to establish an early imprint of their case on the court. By neglecting to effectively utilise this part of the appeal process, they squander valuable “real estate” where case merits could be framed and discussed.
The nature of this “real estate” isn’t fully capitalized on, as many practitioners write a boilerplate request and fail to adequately introduce the court to their case in this prime spot of the brief. Not only does such an approach underserve the case, but it also hinders the ability for lawyers to set an immediate and robust tone for their arguments.
For legal professionals, the call to action is clear: use the prime positioning of the oral argument to its full potential. By leveraging this, practitioners can embolden their cases and make an early and lasting impression on the court.