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.

Have You Seen the Second DCA’s New Procedures on Oral Argument?

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

Jared and Judges of Second D C A at Practicing Before the Second D C A C L E.

Jared Krukar introduces the judges of the court at the 2017 Practicing Before the Second DCA CLE presented by the Florida Bar Appellate Practice Section. Photo by Kristin Norse.

The Second District Court of Appeal has long been known for its liberality in granting oral argument, but also had a discrete list of types of cases in which it would almost never do so.  However, the Court recently updated its Internal Operating Procedures[.pdf] (“IOPs”) to reduce the list of exceptions and leave the judges with more express discretion.

The prior Internal Operating Procedures expressly listed six types of cases where oral argument was “not generally permitted.”

The IOPs were last amended on October 15, 2015.  In that version, the Court stated it would generally not permit oral argument in appeals in which a pro se party is incarcerated, reemployment assistance appeals, original proceedings, postconviction appeals, 9.130 final and nonfinal appeals, and motions.

The Court always had discretion to grant oral argument in any of these cases, but rarely deviated from the list.

The new Internal Operating Procedures reduce the exceptions, but expand apparent discretion.

The revised IOPs, effective as of April 12, 2018, no longer expressly exclude from oral argument original proceedings, final and nonfinal 9.130 appeals, nonsummary postconviction appeals where the parties are represented, reemployment assistance appeals, or motions.

However, the IOPs added new language that elucidates the Court will likely apply discretion on a case-by-case basis more than it has in the past:

Requests for oral argument in expedited proceedings, including termination of parental rights and dependency cases, are presented first to the merits panel.  Upon the panel’s decision to grant oral argument, the clerk will set the case on an expedited basis.

Other than expedited proceedings, cases are set for oral argument prior to the assigned panel’s review.  As such, the cases are provisionally set for oral argument.  Should the panel of assigned judges decide unanimously that the court will not benefit from oral argument, the clerk will be directed to notify the attorneys or parties by order that the argument is cancelled.  An order cancelling argument for this reason will generally issue no later than two weeks before the date of the scheduled argument.

While the current IOPs still say that “the court permits oral argument as a matter of course in most proceedings,” this new language makes clear that the Court is aware of its discretion and will inevitably use it to reject oral argument when it deems fit to do so.

Does this mean more or less oral arguments in the Second District?

Well, according to the IOPs, it now appears that one can seek oral argument in nonfinal appeals, original proceedings, and certain other cases whereas before extraordinary measures would need to be taken.

But don’t jump the gun just yet.  The Second District’s “Notice to Attorneys and Parties[.pdf]” still contains a list of types of cases excluded from oral argument, and it still matches what the old IOPs said.  Presumably the Second District will be updating the notice to match the new IOPs, but for now, it governs what parties can file.  Also, check out our post on the Second District’s Practice Preferences as well to be sure you’re complying with all current requirements.

If you have a case on appeal and aren’t sure whether oral argument is available, or whether it is the best option for you, contact us and ask.  There are pros and cons to every decision like this, and we can help you make the right choice for you and your case.

5th District Court of Appeal

Fifth District to Allow Parties to Appear Remotely at Oral Argument

/0 Comments/in , , , /by

The Fifth District Court of Appeal has put in place a pilot program allowing attorneys and parties to appear at Oral Argument remotely.  The limited program is the first of its kind in Florida.

5th District Court of Appeal Oral Argument

You will be able to avoid a visit to Florida’s 5th District Court of Appeal under the pilot program launching June 5, 2018.

The details of the new program

Starting on June 5, 2018, the Fifth District will allow parties set for Oral Argument to appear either in person at its Daytona Beach courthouse, or remotely from the Marion County Courthouse in Ocala.  The details are set forth in Administrative Order No. AO5D18-01 [.pdf].  In brief,

  • Participation is completely voluntary, and either one or both sides may participate.
  • Any technological problem on the day of argument will result in switching to standard teleconference.
  • Remote oral arguments will be placed first on the daily docket.
  • Courtroom decorum rules apply at the remote location, so no flip flops!

How to sign up

To participate, a party must file a “Notice of Remote Argument,” copied to the opposing party, and send an email to the Fifth District’s clerk.  These must be filed and sent no later than seven days before the scheduled oral argument.  No order will issue – the remote argument is deemed granted upon the Marshal replying with a confirmation email.

Is this the future?

Probably, but it’s not all positive.

There are many benefits to the application of technology to the judiciary–see some of our past articles on e-filing, electronic access, and other technology changes for some examples.  Travel for oral argument is not an insignificant burden on parties and attorneys, both in time and money.  Removing that barrier will allow parties freedom and a more academic determination as to whether to pursue oral argument.

But there is certainly something to be said about appearing before the courts in person.  The parties only have a few precious minutes of face time with the court, and anyone who has used videoconferencing on their own knows that it is possible for something to be lost in translation.  The question will be whether remote appearances can adequately provide the same level of familiarity and experience.  Only time will tell, and the answer will probably not be determined until long after June 5.