Follow-up on Lawyering in the Louisville case
In response to my blog posting about the inadequate brief filed by the petitioner's lawyer in the Louisville voluntary integration case, I received an email yesterday from Professor Sam Marcosson, who teaches at the Brandeis School of Law at the University of Louisville. Professor Marosson had the lawyer (Teddy Gordon) as a guest in his constitutional practice seminar earlier in the semester, and the students gingerly asked why he had filed such a short brief. Gordon replied that he read the Supreme Court rules, and they stated that oral argument shouldn't repeat what's in the briefs, so he wanted to "save" his strongest points for oral argument. Oi!
Apparently, Gordon also rejected an offer from Ted Olson to argue the case. I wonder whether he made that decision in consultation with the client. It's hard to imagine the client rejecting such an offer, at least on the assumption that Olson would have been paid by someone else.
Apparently, Gordon also rejected an offer from Ted Olson to argue the case. I wonder whether he made that decision in consultation with the client. It's hard to imagine the client rejecting such an offer, at least on the assumption that Olson would have been paid by someone else.
posted by Michael C. Dorf @ 1:11 PM
10 Comments:
At 3:39 PM,
Luis Villa said…
Which Louisville inadequacy posting?
At 4:00 PM,
Michael C. Dorf said…
It's in the archives under "Briefs in the race-based student assignment cases." Also, my FindLaw column from last week talked about this at http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20061120.html
At 8:36 PM,
Luis Villa said…
Ah, didn't have Louisville or inadequate in the body, so my search didn't see it. Danke. You might consider posting links to your findlaw articles here when you post them- that seems to be common practice for other law bloggers.
At 10:26 PM,
Adam P. said…
The "payment" argument might make sense except that I doubt the "client" is responsible for legal fees here either way. My suspicion would be the attorney is either doing this pro bono or being compensated by one of the conservative legal groups.
One question- how did he get qualified for the SCOTUS bar?
At 8:34 AM,
Michael W. Dowdle said…
Are SCOTUS briefs for other cases readily available? I thought they were. It sounds odd to me that someone would try to grok how to write a SCOTUS brief simply by looking at the rules of the court.
At 4:09 PM,
Craig J. Albert said…
They're pretty available through a variety of sources. Anyone who wants to get a good idea of how these briefs should read would do well to look at the Solicitor General's page or the pages of firms that do a lot of Supreme Court work, such as Mayer Brown. And they should also look at unsuccessful briefs, so as to learn what not to do.
To Adam P.: he paid the fee and filled in the form. It doesn't take much more than that.
At 11:34 PM,
Adam P. said…
Hmm, I awlways thought you had to be "sponsored" by a current member. Young Jedi has much to learn
At 3:01 PM,
Craig J. Albert said…
Yes, there is sponsorship too, Luke Skywalker.
At 3:54 PM,
Anonymous said…
I like the combination of Stranger in a Strange Land and Star Wars on this chain, though I think the latter is way unworthy of the former in any side-by-side comparison.
I will now withdraw to grok in fullness all that has been said today on this blog.
At 3:47 PM,
Anonymous said…
Having 30 years at the bar, I don't know a single lawyer who would give serious thought to a supreme court brief, it being generally known and understood that absolutely nothing done by the lawyer will impact the outcome of the case, if cert is granted. The idea that any case is won or lost by either brief or argument, today, is a farce. You couldn't convince Scalia and his likes that the sun was up, if he had the blinds drawn.
Anyone who thinks that any of the current crop of judges, save perhaps Stevens, will be affected by the briefs is sadly mistaken. There is no evidence that briefs are even read, today. Cert petitions are not read, for sure.
Second, having probably worked the case pro bona from the outset, why should this lawyer step aside so that the current crop of very dull advocates would have a marketing opportunity?
I found the brief compelling on its most important point--how does one explain race based action to a 5 year old.
Post a Comment
<< Home