What is an oral argument in an appeal?
An oral argument is a discussion of facts and law involved in a case on appeal. Attorneys on both sides of the appeal are limited to 15 minutes to present their arguments, unless prior permission is obtained from the court.
Do appellate courts have oral arguments?
Oral argument is your chance to further explain to the appellate court in person the arguments that you made in your brief. You can clarify the points you made in your brief, tell the appellate court what you think is most important about your arguments, and answer questions from the appellate court judges.
How long do you have for oral arguments at the Supreme Court?
During oral arguments, each side has approximately 30 minutes to present its case, however, attorneys are not required to use the entire time.
What happens when the court hears oral arguments?
The court hears three or four different cases on each day on which oral arguments are scheduled. The court may then vote to change the outcome. Once the proposed outcome of a case is finally determined, a draft opinion is prepared and circulated for extensive comments by the other justices who heard the case.
How do you start an appellate oral argument?
This week, we’re tackling the main elements of successful oral arguments.
- Start strong. At the beginning of the argument, introduce:
- State the issue. After your introduction, briefly describe the case.
- Provide a roadmap. You want to let the court know where you are going with your argument.
- The facts.
Why do oral arguments remain important to the court?
First, oral argument provides a unique opportunity for attorneys to converse with judges and be a part of the decision-making process. Second, oral argument is valuable for clients, who can see their concerns being addressed by the court and better understand how invested the judges are in the case.
What are the benefits of lawyers making oral arguments?
Are oral arguments important?
In sum, oral argument is still important (not just in California), but its ability to change a panel’s collective mind depends in large part on the advocate. If counsel’s intent is to simply summarize the briefs at oral argument, the client would be just as well served if arguments were waived altogether.