Clausen's Appellate Advocacy Judicially Endorsed
January, 2005
Appellate advocates are not fungible, anymore than are trial lawyers. The task is not to merely research and painfully recite precedent, as do many lawyers. The goal is, or at least should be, to compel the attention and respect of the court. Does the attorney have presence? Does his or her oral presentation command the court's attention and respect? Is the written presentation both easy to read and interesting? Does it sing -- sending a forceful message?
The Clausen Miller Appellate Practice Group believes the answer to each question must be a resounding yes. In furtherance of that objective, Clausen has developed distinctive techniques over several decades and each member of the practice group is steeped in those skills.
One such technique is the distinctive manner in which the Clausen Miller Appellate Practice Group crafts its Statement of Facts. That statement must argue the case -- without appearing to do so. It must demonstrate the equities, without violating the rule that states that the facts must be stated “fairly, without argument or comment.”
Appellate justices have, over the years, referred to Clausen Miller briefs as “distinctive.” Now there is more. An Illinois Appellate Court has acclaimed Clausen briefs to be effective appellate advocacy.
Clausen techniques, which have been mastered by and were used by Clausen partner Melissa Murphy-Petros in Vittetoe-Patrick v. Petersen, Illinois Appellate Court, First District No. 1-03-2571, frustrated plaintiff's counsel (a leading Illinois plaintiff's personal injury law firm) prompting them to move to strike Clausen's Statement of Facts as violative of the afore-referenced Supreme Court Rule. The Appellate Court denied that motion, endorsing the Clausen Miller brief as follows:
Plaintiff argues that the Statement of Facts contained improper argument. We find no basis for this argument. Defendant's brief does nothing more than organize neutrally stated facts under headings relevant to the issues in this case. This is in no way in violation of the spirit or letter of Rule 341. Plaintiff argues that defendant's Statement of Facts give him “a great leg up in all his subsequent arguments.” To the extent that it does, we find that it is nothing more than a reflection of effective appellate advocacy, not a violation of any Supreme Court rule.
Back to CM Report of Recent Decisions (2005v1) 2005 Volume 1 Table of Contents
