Postgraduate Information

“I had learnt the true practice of law.  I had learnt to find out the better side of human nature and to enter men’s hearts.  I realized that the true function of a lawyer was to unite parties riven asunder.”

Before disclosing the author of this reflection committing, with the heart and mind of an attorney, to serve the best interests of both sides of an argument, some context and thoughts of my own:

The speaker of the words above earned his law degree in London in 1891.  Upon “graduation” and returning to his native nation with the intention of undertaking the successful practice of law, he was deeply frustrated to find that nothing he had learned in fact applied to the legal situations he was asked to serve in.  His colleagues called him the “briefless barrister.”  After two failed years of attempts to force himself into successful practice, he accepted the chance to start again in a new atmosphere, and went to a new country, South Africa, with hopes that a changed mindset and atmosphere could yield a better outcome for the application of his mind and efforts.  This did in fact work, but the financial and professional success came only after the realization above, which came along with rejecting a legal model in which the author felt the only interests served were the financial interests of the lawyers. 

Continue ReadingPostgraduate Information

Correlation Between Number of Questions the Justices Ask and Losing Your United States Supreme Court Case

The New York Times has published a story about some studies showing a strong correlation between the number of questions the Supreme Court justices ask a particular litigant during oral argument and an increased likelihood that that side will lose.  In the words of the attorney who did some of the first work on this question while she was a still a law student,

“The bottom line, as simple as it sounds,” said the student, Sarah Levien Shullman, who is now a litigation associate at a law firm in Florida, “is that the party that gets the most questions is likely to lose.”

Shullman only studied ten cases, but, the article reports, Chief Justice Roberts confirmed the result in his own, larger study while he was a circuit court judge.  

A recent, much more thorough study, accepted for publication in the Washington University Journal of Law and Policy, seems to prove the correlation exists.  From the abstract,

This paper tests whether Supreme Court justices tip their hands at oral arguments. Specifically, we test whether, when justices ask more questions of one side, that side is more likely to lose their case. The findings support the theory; namely, when justices ask more questions of the petitioner’s attorney the Court is significantly less likely to reverse the lower court decision.

The NYT remarks that Chief Justice Roberts “sounded both fascinated and a little deflated by the results of his experiment. ‘The secret to successful advocacy,’ he said playfully, ‘is simply to get the court to ask your opponent more questions.'” 

The result seems obvious.  It is human nature, at least among lawyers, to want to interrupt and ask questions of someone you disagree with, especially if the person’s answers are not satisfactory.  In other words, the side that has a sound, convincing answer for every question has created a better argument.

Now, if only a study could show how to have a sound, convincing answer for every question in every argument.  That would be a real secret to successful advocacy.

Continue ReadingCorrelation Between Number of Questions the Justices Ask and Losing Your United States Supreme Court Case

In America You Can’t Buy Justice. But You Can Rent It.

In our final Law Governing Lawyers class, we had an extended discussion of proposed ABA rules strongly encouraging—if not requiring—minimumpro bono work by members of the bar (or law school students). What prompted this was our reading on the unmet need for legal services.  Among the indigent, those seeking immigration or asylum, and the mentally ill, legal services are virtually unobtainable. 

This is especially true for civil actions; at least in criminal actions an attorney can be appointed for an indigent client.  Civil representation for disadvantaged clients, in contrast, is often unaffordable.  When they can afford it, the lawyer is usually one whose entire client base is barely able to afford any fee.  Such attorneys mean well but be struggling with humongous case loads and limited resources.  My basic legal processes are infeasible for them, especially a thorough investigation or discovery.  While trying to help so many in need, they may be unable to provide any client with truly competent or adequate representation. 

Legal clinics (such as our own venerable Marquette Volunteer Legal Clinic) try to fill the gap, but often such clinics can only offer advice and direction.  They cannot or do not provide representation.

Against this backdrop, the ABA House of Delegates has considered and rejected changes to Model Rule 6.1 that would require lawyers to provide at least 50 hours of pro bono work per year, with a relatively cheap hourly buy-out.  There are of course, always mechanistic complaints: how would compliance be recorded? how would the requirement be enforced? what would the penalty be?  These can be worked out.

The real problem seems to be other complaints that are more philosophical.  What can a lawyer accomplish in 50 hours per year?  Would forced-labor representation be substandard?  Shouldn’t lawyers be able to avoid practicing in skill-areas they don’t want to practice in?  And why are we picking on lawyers?  Do doctors or plumbers have to do pro bono work?

Continue ReadingIn America You Can’t Buy Justice. But You Can Rent It.
Newer Posts
Older Posts