Appellate Law NJ Blog
  • Home
  • Bruce Greenberg

Should Two Attorneys be Able to Split an Appellate Oral Argument?

Posted by Bruce D. Greenberg on May 23, 2018 in Administrative matters, Appellate Division, Supreme Court of New Jersey | 0 comments

The Supreme Court announced that it is seeking comments on a proposed amendment to Rule 2:11-1(b)(3).  That rule, which deals with oral argument in the appellate courts, currently states that “[n]o more than two attorneys will be heard for each party.”  The proposed amendment would say “One attorney will be heard for each party, unless the court otherwise orders.”

The current language permits parties to decide whether they want to have two counsel split an oral argument.  The amendment transfers that decision to the appellate court.  Though I have recently been involved in a few split arguments, in complex mass tort Multi-County Litigation discussed , , and here, there are comparatively few cases where more than one attorney argues for a party on appeal.  There thus seems no need to take the choice of oral argument counsel away from the parties.

It is not as though parties who use two attorneys get extra argument time.  The very same rule states that, regardless of whether one or two counsel argue for a party, “[e]ach party will be allowed a maximum of 30 minutes for argument in the Supreme Court, unless the Court determines more time is necessary, and 30 minutes in the Appellate Division, but the court may terminate the argument at any time it deems the issues adequately argued.”  Allowing a party to share argument between two counsel thus does not take more court time.

Financial disincentives to the use of more than one oral advocate help ensure that divided arguments are uncommon.  In an hourly appeal, the client who opts for a divided argument is paying two attorneys for their time instead of one.  In contingent matters, a law firm or firms are investing the time of two attorneys rather than just one.  Rational appellate litigants do not choose to use two attorneys unless the financial stakes of the case justify that, which is why that does not often occur.  It is not clear what problem this proposed amendment is intended to fix.

Finally, the amendment seems to contemplate that a party seeing to divide argument would have to do so by motion.  That is an added step that unnecessarily causes expense to that party and adds to the motion burden of our appellate courts.  It also enables the other party to oppose that request, which is in tension with the practice under Rule 2:11-1(b)(2) that oral argument is granted if any party requests it.  Just as one party cannot veto an oral argument request made by the other party, one party should not be able to try to dictate how the other party presents oral argument.

The comment period is open until June 15, 2018, and if approved, the amendment would take effect on September 4, 2018.  Interested readers, whether in favor of or opposed to the proposed amendment, should make their voices heard.

No Responses to “Should Two Attorneys be Able to Split an Appellate Oral Argument?”

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Court Rule Amendments Effective on September 1, 2018 - Appellate Law NJ Blog - […] The language in Rule 2:11-1 regarding how many attorneys may argue for a party has been amended to say…

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

About the Author

Bruce D. Greenberg, a partner of Lite DePalma Greenberg & Afanador, LLC, has more than 35 years of appellate experience.  He has argued dozens of cases in New Jersey’s Appellate Division, and he has handled oral arguments in the Supreme Court of New Jersey and the Third Circuit Court of Appeals as well.  Mr. Greenberg’s appellate cases have ranged from . . more

 

Subscribe

  • reader reader
  • Subscribe to Appellate Law NJ Blog by Email

Archives

Links

  • An Appeal to Reason – California Appellate blog
  • Class Action Blawg
  • De Novo- Virginia Appellate Law blog
  • Florida Appellate Review
  • How Appealing
  • Maine Appeals Blog
  • New York Appellate Law blog
  • NJ Judiciary
  • On Brief – Iowa Appellate Law Blog
  • Third Circuit Blog
  • Third Circuit Court of Appeals

Categories

  • Administrative agency actions
  • Administrative matters
  • Appellate Division
  • Attorneys fees
  • Case management
  • Chancery issues
  • Class actions
  • Constitutional law
  • Consumer protection
  • Contract interpretation
  • Criminal law
  • Discovery
  • Effect of decisions by other courts
  • Judges
  • Jury issues
  • Municipal land use
  • Notable opinion writing
  • Pleadings
  • Practice Pointers
  • Standards of review
  • Statutory interpretation
  • Summary judgment
  • Supreme Court of New Jersey
  • Third Circuit Court of Appeals
  • Uncategorized
  • United States Supreme Court

Tags

Administrative agency actions Appendix Arbitration Briefs Chief Justice Stuart Rabner Court Rules Family Part interlocutory vs. final decisions Judge Allison Accurso Judge Anthony Parrillo Judge Carmen Alvarez Judge Carmen Messano Judge Clarkson Fisher Judge D. Brooks Smith Judge Douglas Fasciale Judge Ellen Koblitz Judge Heidi Willis Currier Judge Jack Sabatino Judge Jose Fuentes Judge Julio Fuentes Judge Marianne Espinosa Judge Marie Lihotz Judge Mary Catherine Cuff Judge Mitchel Ostrer Judge Patty Shwartz Judge Stephen Skillman Judge Susan Reisner Judge Thomas Ambro Judge Thomas Hardiman Judge Victor Ashrafi Justice Anne Patterson Justice Barry Albin Justice Faustino Fernandez-Vina Justice Helen Hoens Justice Jaynee LaVecchia Justice Lee Solomon Justice Roberto Rivera-Soto Justice Walter Timpone Law of the case Makeup of court Notice of appeal Prerogative writ appeals Standing Statute of limitations Waiver

Designed by Elegant Themes | Powered by Wordpress