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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT