Legal Argument Roadmap
“Remember that arguments are short and spending too much time quoting takes away the substance of your argument. It`s great to look well-informed, but it`s bad to look flashy. Are you preparing for your argument? Other advice from faculty and advocacy committee members includes: “Support your reasoning so that if a judge disagrees with your position on one point, you can say that even if the court does not accept this premise, you should still prevail on narrower ground.” The thematic statement should remind the court of the nature of the case and repeat your client`s story. And the roadmap should include no more than three key points that you want to address. As one practitioner put it, “Write an introduction that grabs the panel`s attention from the first sentence, frames the appeal and problems, and presents a compelling narrative of why your client should prevail.” 3 However, it is important that the topic does not overshadow the roadmap.4 Although some researchers suggest completing the roadmap in 30 seconds – because sometimes it is a long time, as you will have done before an interruption5 – everything should last up to 60 seconds. “Repeat, repeat, repeat. Train loudly. Familiarize yourself with how your argument sounds and familiarize yourself with the names of parties, cases and statutes. Familiarize yourself with the language of the case, with the details, and it will be easy to talk about it fluently without looking at your notes.
For those who are not yet familiar with moot court pleadings, the following should serve as a guide. For more information, contact a member of the Advocacy Board and/or watch a video recording of the Hardt Cup or Dean Cup finals. Even at the highest levels of appellate representation, oral argument is closer to a conversation than a speech. “Be confident. Even great supporters aren`t perfect, and not all cases are winners, but presenting your arguments with certainty and speaking in a clear and direct tone makes all the difference. “Was there an effective argument that I didn`t make?” To win your advocacy essay, it is important to focus on the main elements of a successful oral argument. Whether you introduce yourself, your client or the problems and the overview of the case, always be clear, concise and precise. This way, you hire the judges and give yourself the best chance of success. “If possible, incorporate into your argument the idea that you are not only right about the law, but that you are also looking for a fair outcome. Although they focus on legal analysis, judges are sensitive to fairness considerations and can be persuaded by them in a narrow case.
“Be prepared for all levels of knowledge of a judge. You never really know in advance whether you have a judge who has looked at the judiciary or a judge who has spent a 30-year career practising in the very area of law you are talking about. Learn to read a judge`s comfort with the material and adjust the details and complexity of your reasoning accordingly. Persuasion isn`t always the art of having the most detail – it`s about getting to know your audience and tailoring your message. “Know the cases very well and be prepared to answer any questions about the facts or procedure below. However, except in response to questions, the hearing is not the right time to recite the facts of the case. “Be aware of the questions you are likely to be asked. While you may not remember the answers to these questions, you need to know in advance how you want to answer. Internalize the content of these answers, rather than memorizing the words, so that you can frame your arguments to match the judges` actual questions. “The first impression is the last impression.” It is a well-known expression that emphasizes the importance of advocacy. The information session is usually the first opportunity to make a good impression, but the in-person appearance before the judges is often more influential.
The opening salvo of your argument is crucial. But the last impression can be just as important as the first. As the saying goes, “You never win on pleadings, but you can certainly lose.” Their closure lines are therefore also critical for the company. “Lead with your strength instead of building on it. You should have an overview of your reasoning and be prepared to move forward if you are not interrupted early, but you are unlikely to pass many of your remarks as they were prepared. Therefore, be sure to reinforce the most important aspect of the case at the beginning and try to articulate the subject of your argument in the first sentence or two. “The most serious mistake at the hearing is not listening carefully to the questions and therefore not addressing the judges` concerns. “Only quote the names of cases if (1) the legal standard is challenged and you are trying to convince the court that your version of the rule is correct, or (2) you are equating with a case to show the court why it should decide for you. Closures should also be short, soft and specific. Admittedly, defenders often have little or no time for a planned shutdown.
Questions that arise during the hearing regularly fill this room, and the lawyer runs out of time, only to say a brief “thank you” at the end. But when time permits, Great Closures are short, soft and specific. 2 See Stephanie A. Vaughan, Experiential Learning, Moving Forward in Teaching Oral Advocacy Skills by Looking Back at the Origins of Rhetoric, 59 pp. L.R. 121 (2017); Sylvia H. Walbolt, Openings in Appellate Oral Arguments, Carlton Fields (22.03.2019). www.carltonfields.com/insights/publications/2019/openings-in-appellate-oral-arguments redistricting is a power and responsibility that is primarily reserved for the states. This case provides the Court with an opportunity to shed light on this important principle and to clarify the apparent confusion in the lower federal courts.
I intend to focus my argument this morning on the issue of abstention: Did the Federal Court err in refusing to abstain from an ongoing state trial? And the case is perhaps one of the most egregious examples of what can go wrong when jurisdictional conflicts arise in the redistricting process.9 In each of these examples, the lawyer`s winning opening was short, soft, and specific. Openings usually contain one or more thematic moves. The theme appeals to ethics and morality, while the roadmap, which introduces the key points, appeals to logic. These lawyers strive not only to show the court that their positions are correct, but also that their clients are right. Sometimes proponents focus on one key issue, but when there are several, they often use signage (“first”, “second”, “third”) to ensure verbal organization in their roadmap. Opening roadmaps are short, although they often paint a clear picture with salient facts or legal principles. Also note the use of vivid and concrete language – the “soft” part of the opening, which often attracts attention. In addition, the openings implicitly or explicitly ask the court to make a specific finding (withdrawal, pre-trial detention, etc.). Short, concise and to the point.
Access in-depth legal research and comprehensive content on Westlaw for just $97/month. Last week, the first article in this series covered seven steps in preparation for pleading trials. This week, we look at the key elements of successful advocacy. 3 George W. Hicks, Jr. Oral Argument: A Guide to Preparation and Delivery for the First-Timer, KIRKLAND & ELLIS (2019-08-16). www.kirkland.com/publications/article/2019/08/oral-argument_a-guide-to-preparation-and-delivery “Being able to steer the conversation by gently alternating between questions and arguments. It also creates a compelling but talkative style that puts judges at ease. “What can be done better? What worked well? What was convincing/unconvincing in the argument? “Don`t react to every point your opponent makes. Just beat the biggest or two biggest ones on which his argument is based. Leave the court with the feeling that you want to choose sides and how you should do it. “Research, research, research.
Next, think about how you can explain the case and your arguments convincingly. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg advised the lawyer in the remark: “Keep it brief, be singled out.” 1 For openings, this usually means starting with a thematic explanation and roadmap of your main points.2 What are the characteristics of a strong opening and closing in oral arguments? Most research on oral advocacy focuses on the center of the argument – the substance.
