Page 11 - CLT122820

NEWS DECEMBER 28, 2020 ¦ 11

Supreme Court Argument Tips From 16
Lawyers Who Made Virus-Era Debuts

By Marcia Coyle

Since the U.S. Supreme Court began historic
telephonic arguments in May, more than two
dozen attorneys have made their arguments to
the justices for the first time in cases ranging from a
water fight between two states to LGBT discrimina-
tion in foster parenting to “faithless electors.”
Some of the debut advocates are veteran appellate
lawyers such as Wiggin and Dana partner Jonathan
Freiman, who has argued extensively in state and
federal appellate courts. Others are former Supreme
Court clerks and law professors, including Aaron
Nielson of Brigham Young University law school, who
was tapped by the court to argue as an amicus curiae.
U.S. Supreme Court building, Washington, D.C.

We reached out to many of the lawyers who made (Photo: Diego M. Radzinschi / ALM)

their debuts this term by telephone to get their tips argued the case CIC Services v. Internal Revenue
and advice for future first-time advocates. Here are a Service:
few highlights from what they had to say, edited for Listen to the prior recordings. The phone argu-
length and clarity. ments have a consistent rhythm to them. You’ll start
to hear it when you listen to enough of them.
>> Sarah Harris, partner at Williams & Connol- Really work on shortening your answers. I spent
ly and former clerk to Justice Clarence Thomas, a lot of time drafting and practicing answers to
argued in the case Salinas v. U.S. Railroad Retire- questions I thought I might get. Then I spent time
making those answers shorter. At the actual argu-
ment Board:
I’m a big believer in a truism attributed to the ment, though, in real time, I found that my answers
Chief: Oral argument is about what the justices are were even shorter than that.
interested in, not necessarily what you want to get Since the justices can’t see you, you might think
out. That’s especially apt in this format, where the you can have more notes out—things to look at
justices and advocates rely more on prepared ma- before giving your answers. You really can’t. As
terial. So my advice is to be flexible. Especially for an argument does in person, the phone argument
the one-minute wrap-ups, don’t wed yourself to a moves so fast that you can’t look at notes. Everything
particular closing; key what you say to particular about the case needs to be at your mental fingertips,
concerns the justices have raised. Also, it’s more so to speak.
important than ever to give a clear yes or no type
response before you dive into your answer, since the >> Masha Hansford, an assistant to the U.S. so-
Justices are often trying to get through a series of licitor general, argued Texas v. New Mexico:
questions before their time expires. Get really comfortable with the sound quality and
reliability of the audio set-up you plan to use for
>> Cameron Norris, associate at Consovoy Mc- the actual argument. I did my moots on the same

Carthy, a former clerk to Justice Clarence Thomas, ¦ Continued on PAGE 12

CONNECTICUT
Law Tribune