What’s it like to appear before the United States Supreme Court? Let’s talk about it, podcast-style.

/1 Comment/in , , , , , , , /by

The United States Supreme Court hears oral argument from attorneys in only about 80 cases a year. Thus, many appellate attorneys never have the opportunity to experience what it is like to actually advocate in the High Court. I (Jared) recently learned what it is like appearing before the Supreme Court from Duane Daiker, a fellow board-certified appellate specialist in Tampa Bay and a good friend of DPW Legal, on the Issues on Appeal podcast.

Duane Daiker and Jared Krukar sit with studio monitors and microphones at a table while recording a podcast
Duane Daiker and Jared Krukar recording
the Issues on Appeal podcast.
Not pictured? The feather quill pen
memento Duane keeps in his office.
(Photo courtesy of Duane Daiker and used with permission.)

Duane is the creator and host of Issues on Appeal. Each week he speaks with fellow appellate practitioners about topics that are interesting to, well, the same people we suspect are interested in this Florida Appellate Procedure Weblog!

Duane recently took his first trip as an advocate to the Supreme Court. He sat second-chair on a case he handled through the trial and intermediate appellate stages. This visit was a perfect topic for his podcast. But rather than just talk about his visit himself on his podcast, Duane enlisted me to guest host his show, and turn the tables on him.

I asked every question I could come up with that all of us inquiring appellate nerds would want to ask. Where do you go when you enter the court? What’s security like? Who comes and talks to you? Is there a lawyers’ lounge? What’s it like sitting at counsel’s table? Did Justice Thomas ask a question? I hear you get a feather quill–can I touch it? (Yes, I really did ask, and yes, I did get to hold it. You know you would ask, too.) Our discussion was full of interesting tidbits about the preparation, the day of argument, the people at the Court, and the entire experience.

If this sounds interesting to you, check out Episode 4 of the Issues on Appeal podcast, “At the High Court.” You can check it out at the link or on iTunes, Google Podcasts, or Spotify.

And if you like that episode, listen to some of the other episodes. Duane has already had a number of great guests. Dineen and I are both slated to be guests for future episodes. What will we talk about? Stay tuned to find out.

Want to hear more about the United States Supreme Court or other appellate issues? Subscribe!

We’ve discussed the SCOTUS in the past (for example, here and here) and we’re sure to do it again. Keep abreast of changes there or in other courts that are interesting or may impact your practice by subscribing for updates on the Florida Appellate Procedure Weblog.

Can Judges and Lawyers Be Facebook “Friends”? It Depends Where You Are.

/0 Comments/in , , , , , , , , , , /by

An attorney can be friends with a judge IRL (in real life). Now they can be Facebook friends too–at least in the Third District.

The Third District Court of Appeal, recognizing the evolving influence and role of social media in our society, has held that a judge should not be disqualified from a case for merely being Facebook “friends” with counsel for a party.

In Law Offices of Herssein and Herssein, P.A., v. United Services Automobile Association, 3D17-1421 (Fla. 3d DCA Aug. 23, 2017), the petitioners filed a writ of prohibition, seeking to disqualify the trial court judge because a potential witness and a potential defendant was listed on the judge’s personal Facebook page as a “friend.”

This issue has nearly a decade of history in Florida law.  In 2009, a Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee Opinion said that a judge may not add lawyers who may appear before him as “friends” on social networking sites, and vice versa.  In 2012, the Fourth District relied on the JEAC Opinion and granted a writ of prohibition, disqualifying a judge because he was Facebook “friends” with the prosecutor, Domville v. State, 103 So. 3d 184 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012).

Then, in 2014, the Fifth District granted a writ of prohibition because the trial judge “reached out” to a party in a dissolution case while litigation was pending and tried to “friend” her on Facebook.”  Chace v. Loisel, 170 So. 3d 802 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014).  While clearly what the trial court did was wrong, and factually different than the issue in Domville, the Chace court went on to express “serious reservations about the court’s rationale in Domville.”  The Fifth District said that “there is no difference between a Facebook ‘friend’ and any other friendship a judge might have,” and that “Domville’s logic would require disqualification in cases involving an acquaintance of a judge.”  The Fifth District also noted that “A Facebook friendship does not necessarily signify the existence of a close relationship.”

This is the legal landscape in which the Third District decided Herssein.  Preliminarily, the court recognized that merely being “friends” in the conventional sense has been historically insufficient to warrant disqualification of a judge.  It then latched onto the Fifth District’s statement regarding the closeness of Facebook “friends,” applying this rationale for three reasons:

  • “Some people have thousands of Facebook ‘friends,'”
  • “Facebook members often cannot recall every person they have accepted as ‘friends’ or who have accepted them as ‘friends,'” and
  • “many Facebook ‘friends’ are selected based upon Facebook’s data-mining technology rather than personal interactions.”

The Fifth District noted that Domville had been decided many years prior, in a quickly-evolving technological landscape–stated simply, times have changed.  It certified conflict with Domville, and denied the petition, holding that merely being Facebook “friends” with someone no longer demonstrates closeness of a relationship.

So where does that leave us practicing attorneys?

  • In the Third District, whether you are Facebook “friends” with a judge is irrelevant to whether your actual relationship is sufficiently close to warrant disqualification.  See Herssein.
  • In the Fourth District, being Facebook “friends” with a judge is sufficient on its own to warrant a disqualification.  See Domville.
  • The Fifth District’s dicta suggests it would side with the Third District, but it has issued nothing precedential upon which to rely.  See Chace.
  • Neither the First nor Second Districts have spoken on the issue.

Newsom Confirmed for Eleventh Circuit Vacancy

/0 Comments/in , /by

The Senate yesterday, in a 66-31 vote, confirmed Birmingham appellate attorney Kevin Newsom to fill the Eleventh Circuit vacancy left by the Honorable Joel Dubina when he took senior status in 2013.

Prior to his confirmation, Newsom was a partner with Bradley Arant Boult Cummings in Birmingham, where he served as chair of the firm’s appellate group. He formerly served as Solicitor General of Alabama. He is the Fifth Trump nominee to be confirmed by the Senate, and the first on the Eleventh Circuit. Check out Senator Shelby’s floor speech for more background on our new judge.