Today's DJ has much of appellate note:
- First, Myron Moskovitz continues his Appellate Adventures with Chapter 17: How do I write the appellants reply brief? Key points are: The reply brief "might turn out to be the most important vehicle for influencing an appellate court"; it's so important that some appellate judges read it first. The reply brief needs to reply. The reply brief needs to address the other side's "strong arguments and important cases." If you can't come with a good response to an argument, you have three options (1) ignore it; (2) say what you can, even if you know it's weak; or (3) concede the point. Option #1 is "a very bad idea"; option #2 "isn't much better"; so option #3 "might be the least-bad way to handle it," providing that conceding the point "won't cost you the appeal."
- Second, PJ Gilbert's monthly column is Revelations: Well-known appellate attorney Jon Eisenberg complained to the Judicial Performance Commission about delays in filing opinions in the 3rd District Court of Appeal. He concludes: "I need not repeat the cliché about justice delayed. It is an issue we all take seriously in keeping a fair balance between quality and expedition. But keep in mind that what is missing from Eisenberg's complaint are the reasons for the delay. That can make all the difference."
- Third, Jon Eisenberg has a letter to the editor, in which he addresses comments made by three appellate specialists in the DJ's Jan. 29 article. Essentially, in response to those comments that those lawyer haven't experienced unusual delay, he points out that they either haven't actually had any appeals there lately or actually have had cases that were decided only after much delay.
- On Law.com see Seth Waxman, Wilmer Prepare for a Busy 2021
Posts
