Oral argument is the most visible part of appellate practice. And while lawyers differ on whether a good argument will change the outcome of your case, we can all agree that it’s the thing your clients and colleagues are most likely to see you doing. Not to mention the thrilling proposition that there may one day be a blurry artist’s rendering of you inside the Supreme Court.
So, it’s natural to get anxious. Here is a beginning-to-end guide on how to conduct an oral argument effectively.
Preparing for the oral argument
First, and most important, write an excellent brief. If you’ve got a choice between mooting your brief and mooting your argument, moot the brief. Have it read for clarity to make sure you read your cases accurately and, most importantly, so a dispassionate colleague can kill your darlings before they escape out onto the docket.
Next is prepping for obvious questions. In every argument, you should have an answer to at least these:
- What is your best case?
- How do you distinguish your opponent’s best case?
- For any vital fact, where in the record can we find it?
- For any vital fact, how do you disagree with your opponent’s characterization of that fact?
- What specific relief are you asking for?
- Where was your objection preserved, and why is it procedurally appropriate to grant you relief?
Then there are the far trickier questions to prepare for. For instance:
- If a fact or point of law is hotly contested, can you concede it and still win?
- If you win, how will it affect other cases?
- Do we need to overturn any authority?
You can’t anticipate every question. But the key to making an educated guess is taking your opponent’s argument seriously.
Far too often, we don’t dedicate enough energy and effort to understanding our opponent’s position. The most cringe-inducing arguments are usually conducted by lawyers who couldn’t have imagined losing before they walked in.
Aside from anticipating questions, you should have the first 45 seconds or so of your argument memorized. Begin with “May it please the court,” and provide a brief roadmap of the point you will argue.
Roadmapping is vitally important. First, it forces you to structure what you are going to say. Second, courts tend to interrupt you less since they know you are planning to address an issue later. Third, and perhaps most importantly, roadmaps let you indicate you don’t intend to argue a particular issue and, if the court is merciful, that can help you focus on your strongest arguments.
A good roadmap allows you to listen to questions, respond thoughtfully and return to your planned argument.
A key part of roadmapping is developing a pithy description of your argument. Look, for instance, to how then-U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar began her argument in United States v. Rahimi a case about whether the Second Amendment allowing disarming citizens subject to restraining orders:
“As this court has said, all too often, the only difference between battered woman and a dead woman is the presence of a gun.” Prelogar then goes on to describe the due process that someone receives before a restraining order can be issued, and the rule established in earlier cases that the right to gun ownership is reserved for “law-abiding citizens.” Prelogar, as an expert, knows that the first minute is the most important real estate in her argument. If she was stopped there and asked questions for the next 10 hours, she’d still have gotten out the elevator pitch for why she should win.
Finally, before you argue, you should have a conclusion mapped out. You won’t always get a chance to give your conclusion because questions may consume your time. But a conclusion adds a veneer of polish to your argument. A good conclusion can be very simple: “Because [a short summary of your argument], we ask that this honorable court [the relief you are seeking]. “Because the trial court abused its discretion in granting this motion under the incorrect standard, we respectfully request that this court reverse that decision and remand with direction to follow the correct standard” is a totally fine conclusion that reinforces your strongest points.
In short, think about and structure your argument like a good brief, even as you consider the possibilities for interruption.
What to do during the argument
• Approach oral argument as an opportunity to address the judge’s concerns. Often a great oral argument is an argument where a judge asks you a question you never thought about before (e.g., whether your case is in the procedurally correct posture, whether an objection was truly preserved or whether there might be some other form of relief you could ask for). Even if you stumble, it is far better to learn about a problem with your case at the argument, while it is still potentially fixable, rather than in the opinion.
• Never make the argument about you. Your opening should never contain any more information about you than your name and the name of your client. It should not contain an admission that this is your first time arguing, or that it’s a lovely day or that you’re so excited to be in front of this wonderful court. Get to your roadmap.
• Listen to the panel’s questions and think before you respond. Take the advice you would give to your clients during a deposition: Stop talking when you get the question, listen carefully to the question and take a beat to consider. Great orators the world over know the power of a pointed pause—taking a breath establishes you as a thoughtful advocate.
• Quickly and candidly, acknowledge your bad facts. “Isn’t it true, Mr. Lawyer, that you only objected AFTER the witness answered the question?” Many lawyers are tempted to dodge and weave at this point. But again, just as in a deposition, begin your answer with yes or no and do not force the judge to chase you down because it will irritate the judge and reduce your credibility. A bad fact acknowledged quickly will bring far less attention than a bad fact tracked down after cross-examination.
• Answer hypotheticals directly, no matter how apt you think it. Excise “that is not this case” from your legal vocabulary. Begin your answer with a yes or no, and only then explain the distinguishing factor from your case.
• Be agreeable. But not too agreeable. Judges are sometimes going to ask you to concede things that wreck your case, and you need to anticipate what those things are in advance so you can know the subtle distinction between a concession you can make to build credibility for the rest of your argument and a concession that will result in the ruling against you being written before you can Uber home.
Concluding thoughts
Remember, the point of oral argument is not for you to look brilliant. It is to get a preview of what the court thinks about your case. If you welcome every question like an old friend, you will develop a reputation as a forthright advocate, even if you cannot win every case.
Ben Sessions, a partner at Sessions & Fleischman, has been lead counsel in more than 65 jury trials, and he has been lead counsel in numerous cases involving novel statutory and constitutional issues before the Supreme Court of Georgia and the Georgia Court of Appeals. He’s a frequently presenter on motions and trial practice. He can be reached at [email protected].
Andrew Fleischman, a partner at Sessions & Fleischman, is a trial and appellate lawyer specializing in Georgia criminal and First Amendment law with an experience in oral arguments. He has been published in The New York Times, The Hill, Slate, The Daily Beast, Arc Digital and the Ordinary Times. He can be reached at [email protected].
ABAJournal.com is accepting queries for original, thoughtful, nonpromotional articles and commentary by unpaid contributors to run in the Your Voice section. Details and submission guidelines are posted at “Your Submissions, Your Voice.”
This column reflects the opinions of the author and not necessarily the views of the ABA Journal—or the American Bar Association.
