drfine.bsky.social

And to you and yours.

It happens. In the Third Circuit, before a panel may issue a precedential opinion, it has to circulate to the full court. Every once in a long while, the court will then vote to take the case en banc without first issuing a panel decision. Happened in one of my cases 20 years ago.

For me it depends on whether the break in the middle of the signature block is within an individual lawyer's information. If it's a natural break between lawyer names and information, I don't worry about it. Reason No. 628 Why I'm So Popular At Cocktail Parties.

Observation from watching video of a lot of oral arguments: if you're sitting at counsel table and you react in any negative way to what your opponent says at the lectern, it really stands out. You may think it's not noticeable, but you're mistaken. Be the Sphynx.

Observation from watching video of a lot of oral arguments: if you're sitting at counsel table and you react in any negative way to what your opponent says at the lectern, it really stands out. You may think it's not noticeable, but you're mistaken. Be the Sphynx.

Best wishes for a happy birthday.

A respectful request of legal journalists, whom I generally really appreciate. If you're writing about an appellate oral argument, please don't just tell us what the lawyers said. Tell us what the judges said and asked. 1/

For those of us trying to get a sense of how receptive the court was to various arguments, those questions are key. This week alone, I've read accounts of three arguments I'm interested in, and none mentioned the judicial response. And these are courts in which I've no doubt there were questions 2/

A respectful request of legal journalists, whom I generally really appreciate. If you're writing about an appellate oral argument, please don't just tell us what the lawyers said. Tell us what the judges said and asked. 1/

I usually advise more junior lawyers not to try humor. It so rarely works and, when it falls flat, it’s really bad. This is the extremely rare case in which it works.

It’s hard to imagine needing detailed instructions for making scrapple, much less wanting to make it.

When we file a motion and go to oral argument, we start with, “please, sir, may I have some more?”

I'm so sorry. May her memory be a blessing.

The prothonotary, by the way, is the clerk. We like our fancy terms here in Pennsylvania. Don't even get me started on praecipes.

You’d need to check with the prothonotary’s office.

And, not to push the point unduly, but our Supreme Court has courtrooms not just in Harrisburg but also in Pittsburgh and Philadelphia, and they're all really nice.

This is in the Pennsylvania Capitol, which is itself a beautiful building dedicated by President Theodore Roosevelt in 1906. This dome is the only stained-glass dome in the building.

Hardly. I bet that you'd be stellar wherever your eyes were fixed (although I suspect Chief Justice Todd might ask why you're staring up and back while answering the court's questions, but that'd for you to answer).

It's only really a problem if your eyes are for some reason on top of your head. If they remain in the traditional place just above your nose, you really don't see the dome during argument.

I don't really challenge the First Department's courtroom for its beauty, but the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's Harrisburg courtroom is pretty close.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court is now hearing oral arguments in Philadelphia. These livestreams are always worth a listen. www.youtube.com/live/VDbk5zR...

Still amusing—assuming you weren’t hurt, of course.

I’m so sorry you’ve had to deal with that, but kudos to the teller for a clever line.

According to Wikipedia, 34 years ago, a descendent of Helen Palsgraf married a descendent of Benjamin Cardozo. Talk about unforeseeable.

When I started practicing, appellate briefs didn't yet use 14-point type. When the federal rules started requiring it, I thought it looked silly. Now I type my bullet points for oral argument in 16-point type.

I'm sure you'll get one some day. Far more practical than the quill pens that one court gives out. Imagine pulling out a quill pen at the bowling alley to score your game over beer and nachos.

They give out lovely pens to counsel and use a very nice font for their opinions.

I think this is right. When you qualify "my colleague" with "on the other side," the judges get it.

I think that works sometimes but not always. If describing a litigation position, I might say "ABC says you should apply res judicata." But that seems awkward when referring to something a lawyer might just have said at the lectern. "ABC answer Justice Todd's question this way, but that's mistaken."

I don't use "my friend" because I worry that it will distract the court ("Huh, are these guys really friends or is he just saying that? They seem pretty contentious."). I've used "my colleague on the other side," which seems to me to be polite without engendering the same distraction.