ILNews

IBA: Institute Offers Advocates an Invaluable Resource

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indianapolis Bar Association’s Appellate Practice Section recently created the Indiana Appellate Institute, a resource available to lawyers throughout the state who have oral arguments scheduled before the Indiana Supreme Court or Court of Appeals. Modeled after the Supreme Court Institute at Georgetown Law School, the Indiana Appellate Institute offers “moot” or practice argument sessions before a panel of experienced appellate advocates, former judicial clerks, and law professors well-versed in the subject matter of the case and general appellate court procedures. The Institute’s mission is to elevate the quality of oral advocacy, especially by assisting advocates with limited oral argument experience, with the hope of assisting courts in deciding cases.

The Institute’s first moot was held on October 22 in the Wynne Courtroom of the Indiana University School of Law—Indianapolis. A distinguished panel of section members took on the role of justices in posing questions to Jim Rossow of Rubin & Levin in Indianapolis as he prepared for his first oral argument before the Indiana Supreme Court. The issue in the case, Gibraltar Financial Corp. v. Prestige Equipment Corp., was whether a lease was a true lease or a disguised security agreement. As Mr. Rossow stood at the podium and delivered his argument, the panel asked questions for about forty-five minutes. After the formal part of the moot, the panel members spent the next forty-five minutes offering constructive and candid advice as part of an informal dialogue with Mr. Rossow.

Mr. Rossow recommends the program to both new and experienced advocates as an effective way to receive “independent, outside advice about how best to present an oral argument.”  He remarked the “panel judges helped me understand how the appellate court approaches a case on appeal. They asked tough questions.” Mr. Rossow’s argument was a success; he persuaded the Court to grant transfer. A decision on the merits will follow in the next several months.

Attorneys with cases scheduled for oral argument who are interested in scheduling a moot argument with the Indiana Appellate Institute should complete the “advocate form” on the Appellate Practice Section’s page on indybar.org. Requests should be made at least three weeks before a scheduled oral argument. Mooting sessions will generally be held one week before the argument to allow counsel adequate time to incorporate the panel’s critique. There is no charge for the service at this time. Finally, although the Institute currently has about 45 volunteer judges, the Section welcomes additional volunteer judges. Please complete the “volunteer judge” form available on the Section’s website. Any questions about the Institute may be directed to Joel Schumm at (317) 278-4733 or jmschumm@iupui.edu.•
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT