ILNews

Program provides lawyers trial run at oral argument

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana Lawyer Focus

A lawyer recently prepared for an Indiana Supreme Court oral argument before a panel of attorneys who peppered him with frenetic lines of questioning.

At the end, the lawyer sighed, then laughed and said, “Anyone want to hear the argument?”

“No! We’re the judges,” a panelist quipped.

appeal-dsc-0063-15col.jpg From left, attorneys Dino Pollock, Kathleen Sweeney, Geoffrey Slaughter and Arend Abel listen to a moot argument in a case bound for the Indiana Supreme Court. (IL Photo/DaveStafford)

So concluded a recent moot court session of the Indiana Appellate Institute. A novel program offered by the Indianapolis Bar Association and the Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law in Indianapolis, the institute gives lawyers a trial run in which they can practice their arguments before a panel of volunteer lawyers and sometimes former judges and justices.

“It’s in the interests of all of us to improve the quality of appellate arguments,” Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP partner Geoffrey Slaughter said after recently sitting as a panelist hearing a moot argument.

Deputy Attorney General Dino Pollock also sat on a recent panel and said that for lawyers who may have limited or no appellate experience, scheduling a moot session through the institute just makes sense. “If you’re going to fall on your face, fall on your face when it doesn’t count,” he said.

IU McKinney Law professor Joel Schumm approached the IndyBar a few years back with the notion of creating a program modeled after the Georgetown University Law Center’s Supreme Court Institute that stages moot sessions for arguments that will be before the justices in Washington, D.C.

Since 2010, 14 cases have been argued at the Indiana Appellate Institute, and Schumm believes the program to be the only one of its kind on the state appellate level. He’s received inquiries from attorneys in other states interested in replicating the program.

“This is the best way to prepare for an oral argument,” Schumm said. “This is a wonderful opportunity to get different perspectives.”

Frost Brown Todd LLC partner Lucy Dollens chairs the IndyBar Appellate Practice Section and credited Schumm’s leadership as the reason the program is gaining wider notice and is poised to see an increase in use.

“From our perspective, it certainly is a resource the Appellate Practice Section of the IndyBar thought would benefit the bar and bench,” Dollens said. “It gives an attorney a chance to actually present oral argument as they would before an Indiana appellate court … and to learn from that experience and refine their own oral advocacy skills.”

Cases that have been pleaded before the institute have ranged from family law disputes to complex contract cases to matters with First Amendment implications. Schumm said a wide majority of attorneys who presented their arguments in the moot forum at the law school prevailed in the appellate courts in decisions issued so far.

Attorney Amy Carson of Mitchell Law Group in Indianapolis credits the benefit of a moot argument with helping her craft a winning argument before the Indiana Supreme Court in a parenting-time case. In June, the high court ruled in her favor in Michael D. Perkinson Jr. v. Kay Char Perkinson, 36S05-1206-DR-371.

“It provided me with a different perspective that helped me think of different ways to argue,” Carson said. Her moot session was about a week before she argued the case in December 2012.

“That allowed me enough time to think about some of the comments made by the panelists and to incorporate those comments or suggestions in the way I presented my argument,” she said.

Carson was invited to sit on a panel and did, and she said that experience also helped her advocacy skills. Schumm also sits on some panels and has a roster of about 45 volunteers who, on their own time, read up on the cases and serve on panels. Former Indiana Justice Frank Sullivan, now a McKinney Law professor, is one of them.

“That’s one of the things that I particularly appreciate about being able to be a member of this faculty,” Sullivan said. “It’s very tightly connected with the real world of law in this community.”

The institute has provided the service free of charge in the past, and it is continuing to do so for attorneys with little or no experience, in keeping with its mission. A $500 fee is now collected from larger-firm or more-experienced attorneys to schedule moot court hearings through the institute.

Dollens said Frost, like many larger firms, considers in every case whether to put on internal moot arguments. But that can be costly. Larger firms can still turn to the institute, which in some cases might provide the service more economically than the firms could arrange them.

“We didn’t want to close that avenue” to larger firms or more experienced attorneys, Dollens said, noting the fees collected will help the appellate section fulfill its mission and objectives.

Bryan Babb chairs the appellate services group at Bose McKinney & Evans LLP and is a volunteer panelist at the institute. He said because he invests time in learning cases when sitting as a moot judge, he takes a personal interest in seeing how the lawyers fare in the appellate arena.

“I’ve always been very proud and very satisfied to see the end product before the actual court,” Babb said. “It doesn’t help the court or the parties to have an ineffective oral argument, and the best result we could ask for is a focused, effective oral argument.”

The volunteer judges don’t take it easy on the advocates who make their moot cases. “We try to keep it as real as possible,” Babb said.

“I have seen lawyers that come to the initial moots and they know their cases very well but don’t appreciate necessarily how important it is to identify the key issues upfront,” he said.

Attorney Tom Vander Luitgaren scheduled a moot session that he said helped him argue successfully before the Indiana Supreme Court in an estate case, Harold A. Fulp Jr. v. Nancy A. Gilliland, 972 N.E. 2d 955 (Ind. 2012). “I don’t know if I can put into words how valuable it was,” he said.

For Vander Luitgaren of the Van Valer Law Firm LLP in Greenwood, the case was his first appearance before the Supreme Court in a long career, and he said having the moot experience refined his presentation.

“They read the appellate court case, they read the brief that had been submitted, and they were very on-point,” he said of the moot panel. “They were prepared, and prepared to give good, constructive criticism when the argument was over.”

The chat session after the moot argument can be among the most beneficial elements, according to Carson, Vander Luitgaren and other attorneys who’ve used the program. Panelists frequently suggest arguments they see as most persuasive, help lawyers frame the law in the strongest way, and stress key points the attorney might not have considered.

“Regardless of the outcome, I was prepared,” Vander Luitgaren said. “I made an effective presentation to the Indiana Supreme Court, and I am indebted to the attorneys who made that possible.”•

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. The fee increase would be livable except for the 11% increase in spending at the Disciplinary Commission. The Commission should be focused on true public harm rather than going on witch hunts against lawyers who dare to criticize judges.

  2. Marijuana is safer than alcohol. AT the time the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act was enacted all major pharmaceutical companies in the US sold marijuana products. 11 Presidents of the US have smoked marijuana. Smoking it does not increase the likelihood that you will get lung cancer. There are numerous reports of canabis oil killing many kinds of incurable cancer. (See Rick Simpson's Oil on the internet or facebook).

  3. The US has 5% of the world's population and 25% of the world's prisoners. Far too many people are sentenced for far too many years in prison. Many of the federal prisoners are sentenced for marijuana violations. Marijuana is safer than alcohol.

  4. My daughter was married less than a week and her new hubbys picture was on tv for drugs and now I havent't seen my granddaughters since st patricks day. when my daughter left her marriage from her childrens Father she lived with me with my grand daughters and that was ok but I called her on the new hubby who is in jail and said didn't want this around my grandkids not unreasonable request and I get shut out for her mistake

  5. From the perspective of a practicing attorney, it sounds like this masters degree in law for non-attorneys will be useless to anyone who gets it. "However, Ted Waggoner, chair of the ISBA’s Legal Education Conclave, sees the potential for the degree program to actually help attorneys do their jobs better. He pointed to his practice at Peterson Waggoner & Perkins LLP in Rochester and how some clients ask their attorneys to do work, such as filling out insurance forms, that they could do themselves. Waggoner believes the individuals with the legal master’s degrees could do the routine, mundane business thus freeing the lawyers to do the substantive legal work." That is simply insulting to suggest that someone with a masters degree would work in a role that is subpar to even an administrative assistant. Even someone with just a certificate or associate's degree in paralegal studies would be overqualified to sit around helping clients fill out forms. Anyone who has a business background that they think would be enhanced by having a legal background will just go to law school, or get an MBA (which typically includes a business law class that gives a generic, broad overview of legal concepts). No business-savvy person would ever seriously consider this ridiculous master of law for non-lawyers degree. It reeks of desperation. The only people I see getting it are the ones who did not get into law school, who see the degree as something to add to their transcript in hopes of getting into a JD program down the road.

ADVERTISEMENT