Exceptionally Appealing offers Normal is Not, about how real appeals differ from ideal appeals.
And Gilbert Submis has Pandemic pandemonium, part I, in which PJ Gilbert notes:
- During the pandemic, the Court of Appeal has an easier time managing its caseload than trial courts. In case anyone forgot, we write opinions. We can do it from laptops and computers at home. Research tools are readily available for us, research attorneys, and our judicial assistants. And as a rule, we conduct oral argument only once or twice a month. We now do it through the marvels of video conferencing via Bluejeans. Can anyone tell me why “cute” monikers are so often used to describe new software technology? Probably to assuage the fears of techno-cowards like… me.
- There are advantages. In an article in the June 2020 edition of the London Financial Times titled, “Pandemic puts remote courtrooms on trial,” barristers and judges offered various assessments of the procedure. For barristers, it can save two to three hours in traffic. Thought they were talking about Los Angeles. ... To get in the mood, she wore a business suit and argued from a stand-up desk. She could have worn her pajamas, something I strongly recommend lawyers avoid when arguing via video conferencing — would be hard for me to stay awake during an uninspiring argument.
- But there are disadvantages to video conferencing oral argument. Much harder for the judges to interrupt. I mean, we do have questions. My subtle approach to overcome this problem is simple — frantically waving my hands in front of the camera to signal the lawyer to stop talking (a euphemism). Lawyers should not be vexed with these interruptions. What better opportunity to know what judges tasked with deciding the outcome of a case think or ask for enlightenment? I suggest that anyone on the video conference be aware that “they” (now permissible) are seen up close. This applies to judges as well as lawyers. Gestures or expressions of distaste do not serve a valuable purpose. I won’t be graphic, but… you know what I mean. ... Simply display a genial and interested expression no matter the inner range and rancor. Acting coaches are available for those who imagine their integrity an obstacle to such dissimilation.
- I recommend appropriate attire… from the waist up. If you are wearing shorts, underwear, or… well, whatever, do not EVER walk away from the camera. Keep that upper profile from only above the waist, better yet, from mid-chest, in view. This applies to judges and lawyers alike. Judges always wear at least a shirt and tie under the robe.
- we all must adapt to what is called the “new normal,” the repugnant phrase that at its birth was properly termed “abnormal.”
And yesterday's DJ column Moskovitz on Appeals had Read Your Oral Argument??? noting how judges are reporting that more and more lawyers are "reading their prepared arguments to the court," evoking:
- "What? Reading is just about the worst way to present an oral argument."
Posts
