- An effective oral argument is not one that looks good, but one that changes the judges' minds -- from "leaning against you" to "leaning towards you." Very difficult to accomplish, but occasionally it happens.
- do the moot court in private
- "Assume that you have drafted an opinion against the attorney we're helping. Grill the attorney on the reasons you did so. During the feedback session, be prepared to advise the attorney on how she might overcome your reasons."
- try to hold the moot court after [counsel has] prepared a draft of their final brief (appellant's reply brief or respondent's brief) -- but before they file it. This might require some planning to squeeze the moot court into a narrow time window. But it allows the lawyer to use the moot court feedback to improve that final brief before filing. That's when it counts most, and it might well turn a loser into a winner.
For a lesson on "plain error," see J.Graber's dissent here:
In short, in assessing whether an error is “plain,” we must consider the views of other circuits even if no binding precedent is on point. Our objective is to determine whether the issue at hand is “subject to reasonable dispute,” Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135, not to determine simply whether the issue is controlled by binding precedent. And, as the cases above illustrate, how other circuits have decided the issue can inform our analysis as to the existence—or not—of a reasonable dispute. ....
This approach to plain-error review also comports with how at least seven other circuits analyze the question of plain error. ....
Our old formulation of the test, as well as its variants, is thus doubly wrong: asking a question about the wrong time (at the time of trial rather than at the time of appeal) and about the wrong subject matter (the district judge’s perspicacity rather than the obviousness of the error). .... The proper inquiry is simply whether, at the time of appeal, an error is “clear” or instead is “subject to reasonable dispute.”
Posts
