’WPCā ŖSŠ"g»vHu/W.~_%§ĮĒŖŸWżG6 É=£Xl­ųMŒ“ Ÿ†S µŅ¬Ŗ(ŗ ”Y”0`>¬”G‰1lY6čøµĶ“õē÷F/vǶĖLŌl=Sś8lZß ' Å_ńŖ~†5¦Šl_¬Œ†ļ3O#³=ėĄT֙Šiß|‘–58Ł;€ČŲ‰XöŸ–×#ŠĆé=¹°˜;Ē=UAb7(š#4޹(ļ1lV X©óō3Ōõ  ÅŚ¶5 b_”=żĒŪpĞY†kģ×¼öJ6ėKŽŽåöįFgŽk¬tõØ?ģ>ąÅS"#"9 ›ipD+',v£äå…Ōꜯ鬈å78‘RMž²6ųü‚Pżä†ać`c(ģœĶh˜į$XmgœØęFŖ\ųĒAĆiÜs¹ī( o§9IßDC9āÕD†ÓØĘ°¶;ģ®XŁzœķ@‰EO»(4ŪQŗ©ĘŅÆhÆ, Ąä‹Ž:PR?n†čį·#ÉÄUN %Ū 0eįNF^ HwT4Xl{ m}} 0N”˜\\orion\Front_Office_HP4000ČČ,,,,ČČ0(@ųŠ Z‹6Times New Roman RegularX(=1'$””Ó  ÓŌ€Š÷ˆˆŠŌŌUSUS.,Ō”N>– gg»:onnie3|x’U‹’ĄĄĄ(ĶO$——Ō’ŌņņóóŌ’ŌŻ ƒ1'!ŻÓ  ÓŌ€ŠƒeˆXXŌŌUSUS.,ŌŻ  ŻŌ_ŌѰŃŃe°Ńņ ņÓ  ÓŃ8€ƒeŠˆddČ8Ńó óŌ‡„Āć„ˆŠƒeŌŃ  Ńņ ņFirst€District€Appellate€ProjectŠ e ŠTraining€SeminarŠ Å` ŠŌ#†Šƒeˆ„„ĀćĪ#ŌŌ‡XزXˆŠƒeŌJanuary€21,€2011ó óŌ#†ŠƒeˆXXزz#ŌŌ‡„Āć„ˆŠƒeŌŠ %Ą ŠĢĢĢĢĢĢĢĢĢĢĢŌ#†Šƒeˆ„„ĀćĻ#ŌŌ‡„Āć„ˆŠƒeŌņ ņņņOral€Argument€„€Abolish€It?€óóŠ 1Ģ ŠĢĢŌ#†Šƒeˆ„„Āć1#ŌŌ‡ # ˆŠƒeŌProfessor€Myron€Ō_ŌMoskovitzŌ_ŌŌ#†Šƒeˆ  #Æ#ŌŌ‡„Āć„ˆŠƒeŌŠ Qģ ŠŌ#†Šƒeˆ„„Āć*#Ōó óŌ‡čÅaēˆŠƒeŌņ ņŠ  ‹& ŠŲŲ€Abolish€Oral€Argument?ó óŌ#†ŠƒeˆēčÅa„#ŌŠ e Šby€Myron€Ō_ŌMoskovitzŌ_ŌŠ ķˆ ŠņņThe€Daily€Journalóó,€September€9th,€2010Š ķˆ ŠÓ‡ÓĢÓ XÓStanley€Ō_ŌMoskŌ_Ō€once€told€me,€š šOral€argument€is€a€waste€of€time.šš€I€didnššt€buy€it,Š ķˆ Šbecause€I€didnššt€want€to€buy€it:€Iššm€an€appellate€lawyer€who€enjoys€the€banter€of€oralŠ ķ ˆ Šargument.€But€he€was€both€an€Associate€Justice€of€the€California€Supreme€Court€and€aŠ ķ ˆ Šformer€state€Attorney€General,€so€he€knew€what€goes€on€ņņbehindóó€the€courtroom.€Now,€IŠ ķ ˆ Šbelieve€he€might€have€been€right.Š ķ ˆ ŠLetššs€set€the€scene€as€the€advocate€sees€it.€You€represent€the€appellant,€and€you€appearŠ ķ ˆ  Šfor€oral€argument€before€our€state€Supreme€Court€or€one€of€our€appellate€courts.€You€lookŠ ķˆ  Šup€at€the€black€robes,€and€you€assume€that€the€justices€have€come€to€the€hearing€with€openŠ ķˆ  Šminds.€Since€you€already€put€in€your€brief€what€you€thought€were€your€best€arguments,€youŠ ķˆ  Šbegin€a€boiled-down€version€of€a€selected€couple€of€your€most€special€Ō_ŌzingersŌ_Ō.€But€soon€after,Š ķˆ  Šthe€justices€interrupt€with€questions.€Nothing€wrong€with€that.€A€dynamic€intellectualŠ ķˆ Šdialogue€might€help€the€court€reach€the€most€just€decision,€which€would€seem€to€be€the€mainŠ ķˆ Šgoal€of€oral€argument.Š ķˆ ŠBut€you€get€a€queasy€feeling:€the€questions€are€not€genuine€inquiries,€but€rhetoricalŠ ķˆ Šš!š€even€hostile.€You€might€even€feel€ambushed€by€questions€that€raise€issues€your€opponentŠ ķˆ Šnever€raised€in€his€brief.€(Later,€when€you€get€the€opinion,€you€see€that€the€decision€turnedŠ ķˆ Šon€that€issue!)€None€of€your€answers€seem€to€satisfy€the€justices.Š ķˆ ŠAn€experienced€appellate€litigator€watching€this€performance€has€seen€it€before,€andŠ ķˆ Šcan€easily€predict€how€the€court€will€decide€the€case.€Usually€only€one€side€gets€hammeredŠ ķˆ Šthis€way.€Generally€itššs€the€appellantššs€advocate,€but€occasionally€the€respondentššs€lawyerŠ ķˆ Šgets€nailed.€The€non-hammered€attorney€might€get€a€few€questions,€but€the€imbalance€isŠ ķˆ Šobvious.€By€the€tone,€content,€number,€and€target€of€their€questions,€the€justices€reveal€whoŠ ķˆ Šwon€the€appeal.€As€Justice€Ō_ŌMoskŌ_Ō€knew,€that€decision€had€been€made€well€before€oralŠ ķˆ Šargument.€The€oral€argument€had€no€effect€on€the€outcome,€no€matter€how€poised€andŠ ķˆ Šapparently€persuasive€the€losing€attorney€argued.Š ķ ˆ ŠThis€is€not€the€case€in€all€American€appellate€courts€and€it€wasnššt€always€the€case€inŠ ķ!ˆ ŠCaliforniaššs€courts.€Years€ago,€when€I€clerked€for€a€justice€of€the€California€Supreme€Court,Š ķ"ˆ Šwe€prepared€a€š šCalendar€Memorandumšš€before€oral€argument€š"š€presenting€the€argumentsŠ ķ#ˆ Šon€both€sides,€often€without€a€recommendation€for€disposition.€Since€the€justices€hadnššt€fullyŠ ķ$ˆ  Šmade€up€their€minds,€oral€argument€mattered€more.Š ķ%ˆ!! ŠThat€all€changed€when€our€courts€began€complying€with€the€š š90-day€rule.šš€Article€6,Š ķ&ˆ"" ŠSection€19,€of€the€California€Constitution€requires€judges€to€issue€opinions€within€90€daysŠ ķ'ˆ## Šafter€the€lawyers€š šsubmitšš€the€case€for€decision,€which€usually€occurs€at€the€very€end€of€oralŠ ķ(ˆ$$ Šargument.€Rather€than€get€squeezed€by€the€90-day€clock,€our€appellate€courts€now€front-loadŠ ķ)ˆ%% Štheir€cases:€they€draft€the€opinion€ņņbeforeóó€the€case€is€š šsubmittedšš€(i.e.,€before€oral€argumentŠ ķ*ˆ&& Ševen€begins).Š ķ+ˆ'' ŠSo€letššs€revisit€the€scene€described€above.€As€the€advocate€argues,€she€notices€theŠ e Šjustices€reading€down€at€some€papers€on€the€table.€€She€thinks€itššs€the€briefs€or€part€of€theŠ e Šrecord.Š e ŠItššs€actually€the€draft€opinion,€all€ready€to€be€filed€and€sent€out.€Once€in€a€while,Š e Šsomething€said€at€oral€argument€will€induce€the€court€to€change€a€bit€of€language€in€theŠ e Šopinion.€But€the€result?€Hardly€ever.€Thus,€the€whole€purpose€of€oral€argument€š!š€to€help€theŠ e  Šjustices€reach€the€most€just€result€š!š€is€lost.Š e  ŠWell,€maybe€not€the€whole€purpose.€Oral€argument€also€gives€the€court€a€chance€toŠ e  Šš šshow€the€flag,šš€to€emerge€from€their€chambers€for€a€week€each€month€to€allow€the€publicŠ e  Što€see€the€pretty€faces€of€those€who€decide€cases.€A€worthy€goal,€to€be€sure,€but€is€this€theŠ e  Šbest€way€to€do€it?Š e  ŠLawyers€spend€a€lot€of€time€preparing€for€oral€argument.€They€re-read€the€record,€theŠ e  Šbriefs,€and€the€cases.€They€try€to€anticipate€questions,€and€they€might€even€practice€in€mootŠ e  Šcourts.€All€this€takes€many€billable€hours€š!š€paid€by€their€clients.€Then€the€lawyers€(often€withŠ e  Šclients)€come€to€the€podium€believing€that€this€investment€matters,€that€they€have€a€chanceŠ e Što€persuade€the€court.Š e ŠBut€they€donššt,€and€the€pretense€of€real€substance€where€there€is€in€fact€little€substanceŠ e Šis€troubling€š!š€at€least€to€me.€Canššt€the€justices€show€their€public€face€by€speaking€at€barŠ e Šassociation€lunches€and€high€school€assemblies?€Much€cheaper€all€around€than€oralŠ e Šargument.Š e ŠWhile€oral€argument€is€not€useless,€its€benefits€are€too€small€to€be€worth€the€timeŠ e Šjustices€spend€on€it,€the€lawyersšš€amount€of€€preparation€time,€and€especially€the€damage€toŠ e Šclientsšš€pocketbooks.€So€perhaps€Justice€Ō_ŌMoskŌ_Ō€was€right:€letššs€just€abolish€it.Š e ŠBut€wait€a€minute.€Abolish€ņņallóó€oral€argument?€What€about€oral€argument€in€our€trialŠ e Šcourts?€That,€my€friends,€is€a€different€kettle€of€fish.Š e ŠMost€of€our€trial€courts€issue€tentative€opinions€before€oral€argument.€That€gives€theŠ e Šlawyers€a€chance€to€use€oral€argument€to€address€the€exact€points€the€court€cares€about.€NoŠ e Šneed€to€guess.€No€need€to€go€through€all€the€arguments€in€your€briefs.€Just€focus€on€whatŠ e Šcounts€š!š€and€you€know€what€counts€because€the€judge€just€told€you€what€counts,€by€showingŠ e  Šyou€the€tentative€opinion.€Simple,€straight-forward,€fair€and€transparent,€the€way€we€hope€allŠ e! Šgovernment€institutions€operate.Š e" ŠSuch€focused€oral€argument€might€actually€change€the€judgeššs€mind€and€reach€theŠ e# Šmost€just€result,€which€is€the€main€purpose€of€any€argument,€oral€or€written.€And€if€you€failŠ e$  Što€change€the€judgeššs€mind,€at€least€you€had€a€fair€shot.€€If€the€tentative€opinion€convincesŠ e%!! Šyou€that€donššt€have€very€good€arguments€against€it€š"š€just€save€your€clientššs€money€byŠ e&"" Šwaiving€oral€argument€and€living€with€the€loss.Š e'## ŠThe€California€Constitution€requires€our€appellate€courts€to€permit€oral€argument,€soŠ e($$ Šthey€go€through€the€motions€š"š€while€hiding€the€ball.€Wouldnššt€it€be€nice€if€the€justicesŠ e)%% Šwould€just€show€the€draft€opinion€to€you,€like€our€trial€courts€do?Š e*&& ŠOccasionally€before€oral€argument,€the€Court€will€send€counsel€a€short€š šfocus€letter.ššŠ e+'' ŠSometimes€this€really€does€give€fair€warning€of€the€precise€issue€on€which€the€decisionŠ e,(( Š(already€written)€will€turn.€But€sometimes€it€is€opaque€or€abstract,€leaving€the€advocateŠ e Šscratching€her€head€trying€to€figure€out€how€it€affects€the€outcome.€But€even€a€good€focusŠ e Šletter€fails€to€give€the€ņņcontextóó€of€the€question.€This€is€what€the€lawyer€needs€in€order€toŠ e Šanswer€the€question€in€a€way€best€suited€to€help€the€client.Š e ŠWhy€not€give€the€lawyers€the€draft€opinion?€Maybe€Justices€fear€that€this€will€increaseŠ e Šthe€number€of€requests€for€oral€argument.€It€is€not€clear€to€me€why€this€would€be€a€bad€thing.Š e  ŠThe€court€might€actually€gain€something€from€an€oral€argument€that€focuses€on€the€issues€theŠ e  Šjustices€themselves€deem€important.€Trial€courts€do,€and€Iššm€aware€of€no€studies€that€showŠ e  Šthat€their€practice€of€issuing€tentative€decisions€increases€the€number€of€requests€for€oralŠ e  Šargument.Š e  ŠDo€justices€believe€that€lawyers€will€not€have€anything€useful€to€say€about€their€draftŠ e  Šopinions?€Or€are€they€concerned€that€lawyers€will€have€too€much€to€say,€are€they€wary€ofŠ e  Šcriticism?€Or€are€they€afraid€of€looking€indecisive€or€stupid€if€they€change€the€opinion€afterŠ e  Šshowing€the€tentative?€(I€sure€hope€not.)€Perhaps€the€answer€is€simple,€blind€inertia:€š šWeššveŠ e  Šalways€done€things€this€wayš8šššŠ e ŠCalifornia€has€six€Courts€of€Appeal,€some€with€several€š šdivisionsšš€(panels€of€threeŠ e Šjustices).€One€of€these€Divisions€issues€tentative€decisions€before€oral€argument€š!š€DivisionŠ e ŠTwo€of€the€Fourth€District€Court€of€Appeal€in€Riverside.€On€its€Web€site,€the€justices€reportŠ e Šthat€without€tentative€decisions,€š šoral€argument€is€often€a€dry,€meaningless€ritual€in€whichŠ e Šcounsel€merely€review€the€arguments€set€forth€in€their€briefs....šš€Š e ŠFurther,€š š[Ō_ŌT]heŌ_Ō€justices€of€this€court€have€found€oral€argument€more€useful€in€assistingŠ e Šthe€court€to€reach€a€decision.€The€justices€do€not€sense€that€their€deliberations€are€any€lessŠ e Šobjective€than€before€the€tentative€opinion€program€began.€Counsel€almost€unanimouslyŠ e Špraise€the€program.€Issuance€of€the€tentative€opinion€before€oral€argument€has€significantlyŠ e Šreduced€the€time€spent€on€oral€argument€in€two€ways.€First,€argument€has€become€moreŠ e Šfocused€and€taken€less€time€as€counsel€can€concentrate€on€the€issues€found€significant€by€theŠ e Šcourt.€Second,€counsel€often€decide€to€waive€oral€argument€once€they€see€the€courtššsŠ e Štentative€opinion.€Thus,€the€program€has€increased€both€the€quality€and€efficiency€of€the€courtŠ e Šresulting€in€a€savings€to€taxpayers.šš€(See€www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/courtsofappeal/Š e  ŠÓ XÓ4thDistrictDiv2/Ō_Ōprograms.htmŌ_Ō#tentative.)Š e! ŠÓ Xø/ÓOur€Supreme€Court€has€declared:€š šIf€oral€argument€is€to€be€more€than€an€empty€ritual,Š e" Šit€must€provide€the€litigants€with€an€opportunity€to€persuade€those€who€will€actually€decideŠ e# Šan€appeal.šš€ņņMoles€v€Regents€of€Univ.€of€Cal.óó€(1982)€32€Cal.3d€867,€872.Š e$  ŠToday,€except€in€one€Division,€oral€argument€in€Californiaššs€appellate€courts€is€indeedŠ e%!! Šan€š šempty€ritual.šš€If€our€appellate€courts€will€not€share€their€draft€opinions€with€advocatesŠ e&"" Šbefore€oral€argument,€we€might€as€well€follow€Justice€Ō_ŌMoskŌ_Ōššs€advice:€save€courts,€counsel,Š e'## Šand€clients€a€lot€of€time€and€money€by€abolishing€oral€argument.Š e($$ ŠņņThanks€to€the€following€for€feedback€on€this€article:€Court€of€Appeal€Justices€JoanneŠ e)%% ŠŌ_ŌParrilliŌ_Ō€(Ret.)€and€Bill€Stein€(Ret.),€and€appellate€lawyers€Jerry€Uelman,€Ted€Boutrous,€JonŠ e*&& ŠEisenberg,€Raoul€Kennedy,€Jim€Mahacek,€John€Dwyer,€Lynne€Thaxter€Brown,€KevinŠ e+'' ŠBrodehl,€Jason€Marks,€Charles€Ō_ŌDellššArioŌ_Ō,€Gary€Watt,€Harvey€Zall,€and€Don€Willenburg.óóŠ e,(( ŠÓ XÓÓ  Óņ ņŌ€čÅaēˆŠƒeŌOral€Argument:€Are€We€Just€Tilting€at€Windmills?ó óŠ e ŠŌ€ŠƒeˆēčÅaŌby€Gary€A.€WattŠ ķˆ ŠņņThe€Daily€Journalóó,€September€16th,€2010Š ķˆ ŠĢÓ  ÓÓ XÓTo€the€uninitiated,€oral€argument€is€the€denouement€of€every€appeal;€the€momentŠ ķˆ Šwhen€the€great€appellate€orators€clash€and€the€appellate€court€considers€how€to€rule.€But€forŠ ķ ˆ Šthose€that€have€been€around€the€appellate€block€more€than€once€or€twice,€loss€of€innocenceŠ ķ ˆ Šis€discovering€that€the€appellate€court€has€a€draft€opinion€already€written€before€the€oralŠ ķ ˆ Šargument.€Š ķ ˆ ŠUpon€submission€of€a€case€(at€the€conclusion€of€oral€argument),€the€court€has€90€daysŠ ķ ˆ  Što€issue€an€opinion,€or€else€the€justices€donššt€get€paid.€Ō_ŌYepŌ_Ō€-€no€pay.€Now€just€think€if€yourŠ ķˆ  Špaychecks€were€subject€to€something€like€that!€That€could€be€a€pretty€effective€form€ofŠ ķˆ  Šincentive.€At€the€Court€of€Appeal,€it€means€that€as€appellantššs€counsel€approaches€theŠ ķˆ  Špodium,€the€court€has€already€made€up€its€mind.€As€a€justice€at€the€1st€District€told€me€onlyŠ ķˆ  Šhalf-jokingly,€š šSometimes€weššd€like€to€hand€the€lawyers€the€draft€opinion€as€they€are€walkingŠ ķˆ Šaway€from€the€podium.ššŠ ķˆ ŠFor€oral€argument€lovers,€and€I€am€included€in€that€group,€the€situation€is€veryŠ ķˆ Šdifferent€in€the€9th€Circuit€Court€of€Appeals.€The€circuit€judges€are€not€boxed€in€by€a€90€dayŠ ķˆ Šrule,€and€as€a€result,€oral€arguments€tend€to€be€hotter.€(Admittedly,€any€oral€argument€withŠ ķˆ Šlive€human€beings€could€be€hotter€than€some€state€appellate€court€oral€arguments,€but€thatššsŠ ķˆ Šnot€the€š šhotšš€I€am€referring€to.)€At€the€9th€Circuit,€all€three€members€of€the€panel€tend€to€beŠ ķˆ Šmore€interested,€ask€more€questions€on€the€law€and€the€facts,€and€both€parties€tend€to€receiveŠ ķˆ Šactive€questioning.€While€the€panel€may€have€an€idea€where€they€are€headed,€there€is€stillŠ ķˆ Šplenty€of€time€to€come€to€a€conclusion.€And€so€they€fire€away.Š ķˆ ŠIššll€take€an€oral€argument€in€the€9th€Circuit€any€time.Š ķˆ ŠBut€what€to€do€about€the€state€appellate€courts?€At€oral€argument,€are€we€just€tiltingŠ ķˆ Šat€windmills?€€Only€one€division€of€one€district€has€a€tentative€ruling€system.€In€the€4thŠ ķˆ ŠAppellate€District,€Division€2,€the€parties€receive€a€tentative€ruling€which,€like€its€trial€courtŠ ķˆ Šcounterpart,€crystallizes€the€issues€for€oral€argument.€Sometimes€so€much€so€that€afterŠ ķ ˆ Šreading€it,€the€parties€waive€oral€argument.Š ķ!ˆ ŠAt€least€thatššs€a€knowing€waiver.€And€thatššs€a€much€better€way€to€abandon€oralŠ ķ"ˆ Šargument€than€trying€to€predict€the€outcome€before€oral€argument€when€the€oral€argumentŠ ķ#ˆ Šrequest€form€arrives€in€the€mail.€Ask€any€appellate€lawyer€that€has€been€at€it€for€a€while,€andŠ ķ$ˆ  Šyouššll€hear€some€version€of€the€following€pleasantries:Š ķ%ˆ!! ŠAppellantššs€attorney€candidly€discusses€the€costs€involved€in€preparing€for€oralŠ ķ&ˆ"" Šargument€including€how€the€court€has€pretty€much€decided€the€issues€beforehand.€Client€andŠ ķ'ˆ## Šlawyer€waive€oral€argument.€The€decision€comes€out€against€the€client.€The€lawyer€getsŠ ķ(ˆ$$ Šberated€for€not€attending€oral€argument.€Thatššs€always€fun.Š ķ)ˆ%% ŠIn€the€other€version,€Respondentššs€counsel€receives€a€copy€of€Appellantššs€waiver€ofŠ ķ*ˆ&& Šoral€argument.€Knowing€that€the€standard€of€review€is€hard€on€appellants,€feeling€confidentŠ ķ+ˆ'' Šabout€the€trial€court€result€and€knowing€that€a€decision€is€already€written,€the€respondent€alsoŠ e Šwaives€oral€argument.€Counsel€confidently€awaits€the€decision.€The€decision€turns€out€to€beŠ e Ša€reversal!€The€client€is€irate.€š šWhy€didnššt€you€go€and€argue?€We€lost€our€only€chance€toŠ e Šchange€their€minds!šš€Another€form€of€fun.Š e ŠWillingly€waive€oral€argument€absent€a€tentative€ruling?€I€donššt€think€so.€Empty€ritualŠ e Šor€not.€Š e  ŠThere€is€another€alternative€to€wholesale€adoption€of€a€tentative€ruling€systemŠ e  Š(although€that€would€certainly€be€the€best€improvement).€In€some€divisions€of€the€appellateŠ e  Šcourts,€the€panel€sometimes€sends€the€parties€a€š šfocus€letter.šš€As€the€title€suggests,€the€letterŠ e  Šasks€counsel€to€address€one€or€two€issues.€As€a€result,€oral€argument€is,€well,€focused.€AndŠ e  Šthatššs€a€big€improvement.€Sending€such€letters€earlier€in€time€would€also€improve€things;Š e  Šsaving€clients€and€counsel€the€time€and€cost€of€preparing€for€oral€argument€on€all€the€issuesŠ e  Šgiven€the€otherwise€unknown€nature€of€the€courtššs€leanings.€Š e  ŠGiven€the€impact€of€the€90„day€rule,€some€have€suggested€(not€entirely€tongue„in„Š e  Šcheek),€abolishing€oral€argument€as€an€š šempty€ritual.šš€Of€course,€a€partyššs€right€to€oralŠ e Šargument€is€constitutional.€(See,€ņņMoles€v.€The€Regents€of€the€University€of€Californiaóó€(1982)Š e Š32€Cal.3d€867,€871-872.)€Š e ŠHow€about€abolishing€empty€ritual€oral€arguments€by€increased€use€of€focus€lettersŠ e Šor€adoption€of€a€tentative€ruling€system?€Now€thereššs€a€compelling€argument!Š e ŠŌ_ŌŌ_ŌÓ XÓÓ  ÓŌ_ŌŌ€čÅaēˆŠƒeŌŌ_Ō