The Wisdom And Efficiency Of Having Separate Appellate Counsel Prosecute And Defend Your Appeals
October, 2010
by Edward M. Kay and Melinda S. Kollross
We wish to caution our friends in the industry that now is certainly no time to try to "pinch pennies" and forego the wisdom and efficiency of having separate appellate counsel prosecute and defend your appeals. The thinking that "why not just have trial counsel" do the appeal is a misguided thought in our practice. Former Illinois Appellate Court Justice Robert Cook, in an article entitled "Should the Trial Lawyer Handle the Appeal?" put it this way:
Some lawyers tell me that clients want their trial lawyers to handle the appeals because they don't want to spend the money to familiarize another lawyer with the case. [D]on't the clients want to win? Cost controls which substantially reduce the chances of success are not cost effective.
The point is, you are not saving money by having trial counsel handle your appeal because you are decreasing the odds that you will be successful in the appeal.
Many scholars and judges have noted that trial attorneys who prosecute their own appeals have tunnel vision. Having tried the case themselves, they become convinced of the merits of their cause. In other words, they lose objectivity and become "married" to the arguments they developed. Separate appellate counsel bring no such biases to the table; separate appellate counsel can determine which arguments to make and which to throw away.
Moreover, appeals cannot be done "on the cheap." This was recognized by the California Court of Appeals in the case of In re: Shaban, 105 Cal. Rptr. 2d 863 (Cal. App. 2001), wherein the Appellate Court had these observations on appellate practice and brief writing:
[A]ppellate briefs receive greater judicial scrutiny than trial level points and authorities, because three judges (or maybe seven) will read them, not just one judge. The judges will also work under comparatively less time pressure, and will therefore be able to study the attorney's "work product" more closely. They will also have more staff (there are fewer research attorneys per judge at the trial level) to help them identify errors in counsel's reasoning, misstatements of law and miscitations of authority, and to do original research to uncover ideas and authorities that counsel may have missed, or decided not to bring to the court's attention.
* * *
[A]ppellate practice entails rigorous original work in its own right. The appellate practitioner who takes trial level points and authorities and, without reconsideration or additional research, merely shovels them into an appellate brief, is producing a substandard product. (105 Cal. Rptr. at 870-71)
In other words, according to the California Court of Appeals: "Appellate work is most assuredly not the recycling of trial level points and authorities." (Id. at 870)
In Litigation magazine, Judge Laurence H. Silberman of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, described the differences and required skills and temperament between trial and appellate lawyers. Judge Silberman stated:
Effective presentations to a federal court of appeals, or to any appellate court, require a blend of talents not necessarily found in the typical trial lawyer. Appellate advocacy is, in short, a specialty all to itself.
Clausen Miller has long recognized what the scholars and judiciary have said about appellate practice -- it is indeed a specialty all to itself. This is why Clausen Miller has long been a proponent of maintaining a separate Appellate Practice Group. The trial attorney does not take the case through appeal. That responsibility rests with the appellate specialist. Such an attorney is schooled in the ever changing and highly technical world of appellate procedure. Our appellate attorneys practice before reviewing courts on a regular basis nationwide. Our appellate attorneys have prosecuted and defended appeals for all Clausen Miller practice groups, including first party property insurance, liability insurance coverage, fidelity and surety, and all areas of tort litigation. Our Appellate Practice Group proves that having separate appellate counsel prosecute and defend your appeals is both wise and efficient.
Back to CM Report of Recent Decisions (2010v3) 2010 Volume 3 Table of Contents
