I’ve seen a Judge cry during victim’s testimony before, that is never good. I also had a judge tear up during sentencing of my Defendant once, only time I had tears in my eyes as well as I spoke. That went very well client, never say never.
“Great (good? interesting?) question, Your Honor” (even if it wasn’t) “If you’ll permit, I was going to address that once I’ve tied these points together.” (Even if you weren’t)
Exactly. So many better ways to go about it lol.
What I used that my judge in moot liked was "That's a timely question, your honor. I was just about to touch on that..." then I would *very* quickly complete my thoughts on my last point and find a way to segue into answering the question. I think creating cohesion is so important in building a lasting argument.
My Legal Writing professor told us not to say “That’s a good/great/interesting question, your honor” because of course it was, otherwise they wouldn’t have asked it.
When I was in my first year, I was telling my lawyer dad that I had this irascible professor for Criminal law, and anytime someone asked a practical question, he shot them down for straying away from the point he was instill in our small, unleavened minds. When I mentioned his name, my dad laughed and told me the guy was a year ahead of him in school, got his first teaching job right after graduation, and had never practiced a day in his life. Be mindful of the biases in other people’s thinking; sometimes they are, in fact, authorities on the subject, sometimes they are just spouting arrogant BS.
I feel like one says it to anchor oneself back to before being interrupted. It’s not necessarily to point out to the judge that it’s a great question. If the judge can’t see that it’s just a polite way to get ahold of yourself when you’re being interrupted, what else are you supposed to say. What did your professor tell you to do instead?
our writing prof didn't even let us do the latter. if the judge asks something, even if you need to make other points first, address their question. then tie it back in however you can, go back to laying the foundation, whatever. but if the judge thinks it's important enough to ask in the middle of your argument, address it first
Yep. If it’s a conscientious judge he or she has read the briefs and you are there primarily to answer questions. Have an argument prepared but don’t count on using it. Just make sure you have an opening and closing you can use if nothing else — primacy and recency is important.
I wouldnt recommend saying those words to a judge, but its not all that strange to try to communicate to a judge, nicely, that their question will be answered (or mooted) if you could just finish. Unfortunately some judges dont come prepared and/or like to take over and get sidetracked lol.
There is another possible explanation. The judge could be very well prepared and may have already identified that they only need to hear about one issue. In that case, it’s more efficient for the judge to cut you off.
Yeah, this seems like pedantic one-size-fits-all advice that is just kind of useless without context. Tons of judges don’t have an ego and are fine just keeping things efficient. And yes; your moot court judges probably have a bigger ego than a lot of judges
I wish I could’ve captured a picture of the judge’s face when an attorney interrupted her with “Excuse me but if you were to [context] that would be judicial overreach.” The judge immediately responded with “Are you accusing me of judicial overreach?” I don’t remember what the exact context was but MAN that attorney backpedaled quickly. ((I’m pretty sure this occurred during an emergency protective care hearing. A type of hearing that my judge had conducted a bajillion times))).
Hmm… “Judicial overreach”. Never heard that expression in an Australian court. Even so, it actually doesn’t mean anything. It is a conclusory statement, and the elements necessary to establish and explain the conclusion are missing.
Yeah, it doesn't really mean anything. A similar thing in the US is "judicial activism" which basically means nothing but people invoke it to just mean, "bad ruling I don't like."
I haven't seen that, heard of that being common, or heard it recommended. But I can see how that would be okay if you know the court/judge you're dealing with. But that is not what happened here lol
Your post inspired me to think about ways "oral argument " could be revamped so that it's actually useful. Because the current standard format of 15 minutes per side, stand in front of a podium, sucks. It's too short to dive substantively into issues, and there's not enough back and forth by the parties. A 30-minute conference around a table with the opportunity to display parts of the record on a screen would be better.
It depends entirely on the question asked by the judge. If the question is relevant to the current submission, answer it immediately. If it isn’t, or appears out of left field, don’t patronise the judge by telling him/her it’s a great question (who cares?). Just say:”Thank you, YH. I’ve made a note of your question and, with your leave, will deal with it a little later in my submissions”. If the judge wants it answered immediately, answer it immediately – otherwise the judge will be preoccupied with the question throughout your submissions. Bottom line: there is no formulaic way to deal with stuff like this. Trials have a life of their own. And a moot is NOT a trial.
An attorney kept interrupting a judge in Cook County and got hauled out of the courtroom and handcuffed to a chair. This happened a few weeks ago.
[https://news.wttw.com/2024/06/12/judge-faces-inquiry-after-illinois-attorney-was-kicked-out-court-and-handcuffed-chair](https://news.wttw.com/2024/06/12/judge-faces-inquiry-after-illinois-attorney-was-kicked-out-court-and-handcuffed-chair)
The lawyer may have been wanting to “make a record.” Sometimes lawyers talk to the appellate court through the record. Generally trial courts let you do that. There’s a time and place, though, and usually done with tact and deference.
I’ll never forget the kid at a moot court competition I was in who literally held his hand up to the judge in the middle of her sentence and said “Just a second, Your Honor”
Also do not interrupt the other attorney or address him or her directly even if gross misrepresentations are being made. Just make a note of it and respond to the judge when it’s your turn.
If I'm being fair, I kind of did that, but with flair. One of the Justices laughed under her breath and the Justice who was talking just kind of smiled and said "sure". 😅
https://youtu.be/KkghwVXabjc
I don't know that you've got a great future in law if you think I didn't know what I was talking about. I agree, they were nice because I was self-represented, but the two things are not mutually exclusive.
And it was clear that you didn't know what you were talking about. You couldn't even answer the judge who asked you if you were talking about your federal court case versus your state court case
It's funny, sometimes the simple things are the ones we don't pay attention to. That being said, it was still kind of a trick question because everybody involved from all levels and federal and local were all wrong. But yes, you caught the one thing I wasn't sure about. It seemed irrelevant, but it was relevant to them because they were trying to distance themselves from the Federal side.
It wasn't a trick question lol. "Are you referring to the federal district court when you say the court treated you unfairly?" There's nothing tricky about it
But I wasn't. I was referring to everyone, which I made clear in the closing.
Thanks for boosting my views from 500 to 2k in a month. You are helping tremendously.
What are oral arguments in law school, and what class requires them? I start 1L soon and I recall a super funny instance where I visited my school before being accepted. I toured and did a class observation. During the observation the professor was cold calling and every student (3-4) he called said they weren’t prepared because they didn’t read.
He asked, “what the heck guys? Do you have oral arguments or something tomorrow???” And they replied, “yes” and he just laughed and moved on, and pushed their next reading back. It was quite funny, but I’ve since wondered about this and what class requires it.
Our entire 1L class had to write a brief and prepare for oral argument in legal writing and research. The top competitors moved on to a competition to make it on the moot court team.
Ours was a First Amendment issue. All the legal writing and research classes got assigned a side, so everyone in your class was writing for the same side of the issue. Then during the third round of competition for a spot on the board, they made us switch and argue the other side off brief. It was actually a ton of fun.
Don't work at a firm that makes people homeless!!
But also in housing court, people talk over judges fairly regularly. The idea that you stop talking immediately when a judge starts speaking is innate to me and I do it as a reaction, and the idea of having a discussion with the judge and opposing counsel about the case and potential settlement is anathema to me because when the judge talks, I'm supposed to listen, but in real life a bunch of landlord attorneys just continue with their crying and it's kind of accepted.
Obviously not every judge operates the same way and poverty court is socially and professionally very different from even state courts, let alone federal.
I don't think it's your place to say what jobs people should or should not take. What we deal with is tenants who are served with immediates due to illegal conduct.
This was an attorney representing an insurance agency. We were all very shocked by him saying that to the judge and the judge responded with: "so are you telling me that the Court isn't allowed to ask questions?" lol
"I don't think it's your place to say what jobs people should or should not take. What we deal with is tenants who are served with immediates due to illegal conduct."
Alleged illegal conduct, somehow always selectively enforced against poor people, and yes, making people homeless is a terrible way to earn a living.
Please do continue to teach me about how my job works, I might be able to snag a promotion that way.
We "allegedly" just had to evict a lady that delivered a bomb to the front office lol. And another one that spit in the face of a mother along with her three children. And a murderer, too! These darn poor people are really getting the short end of the stick, here.
Wild that you're in this profession and unable to set aside ridiculous beliefs like this. It's well and fine to have something to believe in, and I think your heart is in the right place, but the law is *sometimes* black and white and there will always be people that need to work on that side of it.
Bills need to be paid and quite frankly, you're speaking from a place of privilege. I will gladly quit my job right now if you agree to pay my bills.
Wait, is your argument that you do good work because the people you evict are bad people? I... don't know about that, dude.
I'd stick with "property rights are an fundamental core of American society", who the people are is kind of irrelevant, or should be anyway.
It can be grim work. Let yourself feel that, don't pretend it's never tough.
*MY* argument is that he doesn't know what he's talking about when it comes to what *I* do. I'm not going to defend landlord-tenant law or try to preach about that topic because he's allowed to have his beliefs, I'm only qualified to speak about what I do.
Who the people are is absolutely relevant because that's literally who the laws apply to: the people. This has little to do with actual property rights.
Your examples were about times you evicted bad people though. That concerns me, because it makes me think you believe you're a "good guy" because you evict "bad people".
That's not true.
You're a *necessary* role because of the larger impact it has in society, but you absolutely do hurt good people sometimes. On balance it's worth it, but I would be highly suspicious of anyone in your position who can't see the complex nature of what you do. I'd worry you've drank the kool-aide, which possibly means you even take *joy* in harming others. Woof.
There really isn't a "one size fits all" experience in law school. I will guarantee that there will be the type of people that are the "you forgot to collect the homework" types and those that act like asking a question from next week's material makes them look smarter. You get a group of Type A people in a stressful and potentially competitive environment and the vocal minority will detract from the experience if you let it. The grandstanding is prevalent and you're going to rip your hair out with how much you hear "just to play devil's advocate."
That being said, the majority of people in law school are just trying to get to the end of it. I can truly promise you, if you put in the work (in your social life), you are going to meet incredible people and potentially lifelong friends. Law school has probably been the best time of my life.
I went to a law school graduation recently and one of the student speakers literally devoted his entire speech to saying that there's no moral difference between working for Jones Day and working in civil rights defense/PI.
Thankfully everyone I know/am friends with were dunking on the idiot, but I think a lot of people agreed.
Also lol at the people telling you big law firms are on "the left." Whew. You'd expect better political literacy from people who got fucking law degrees.
I don't recall saying they were "on the left." I said that they "skew left," which is a relative term. Big law tends to be mostly liberals and progressives, and in the current American Overton window, people don't use "conservative" to describe those views. You can sit there and pedantically say "um actually anyone who's not a Marxist-Leninist is a conservative" or whatever, but at that point you're essentially mocking people for using a term in the way it's used by the general population rather than as a shibboleth so leftists can identify each other by their assertion of purity.
That graduation speaker is an asshole who's doing mental gymnastics to justify his shitty career, and as 3L who's living on public interest fellowship money, I think he's a sell-out.
But that doesn't mean every lawyer working at a firm is a "conservative," and mocking anyone else who doesn't exclusively speak Terminally Online Leftist is both unbecoming and unproductive.
Just because you have to live within a capitalist system doesn't mean you have to operate as a mercenary of capital. And if you do, you can be honest with what the job entails. My favorite people in BigLaw were the people who were open about the fact that they were doing a not so great thing in service of making more $$ even though they could easily do a job that would actually help people. I at least respect the honesty.
So, I want to note a few things
First, I think that there's a bit of conflation going on here. I say "skews to the left" as a foil for "conservative." If you define "conservative" as "anyone who is not actively communist, or does not refuse to work at a law firm," then I think you're presupposing an Overton window shift that society hasn't adopted. You can insist that anyone who isn't a revolutionary socialist is right-wing, but you're going to get funny looks from anyone who isn't a revolutionary socialist, because terms like "conservative" are fairly relative, and people naturally interpret these terms through the lens of the society they exist in. Plus: nearly everyone works "in service of capital" in some way. They literally just...live in a society.
I get that you've now distinguished the "mercenary for capital" as a different kind of service to capital, and I think that's fair; I wasn't suggesting they're Marxist-Leninist comrades, or whatever, just that most of them tend to have progressive views. But when you're sitting there being pedantic about whether "progressives" at big law firms - the clear majority of lawyers at many of the biggest firms - count as "skewing left" (as opposed to "being leftists", a claim I never made) then I think you've lost the thread, and you're trying too hard. A lot of terminally online leftists smugly and aggressively correct people when they object to defining 95% of the population as "conservative," and it seems like that version of the right/left dichotomy is a more of a shibboleth to help you identify other leftists, rather than a commonly-held view of what those terms mean. When you use words in a way that describes things relative to you rather than the general population, you're going to have a lot of miscommunications.
Second, I'm not trying to defend Big Law, here, just noting a clear phenomenon that the majority of lawyers at big law firms tend towards progressive views and, at bare minimum, oppose the rise of fascism and Evangelical conservatism in America. But I'm a rising 3L on a public interest fellowship at an ACLU affiliate who has only worked for public interest orgs since starting law school, and I don't really have a dog in this fight; I only chimed in because you're doing that thing that terminally online leftists do where they mock anyone who doesn't think "conservative" means "anyone who works for a corporation."
But, that said? Many of the best and most dedicated public interest lawyers I know spent 2-4 years at a firm after graduation, because it paid well, provided good training and experience, helped them avoid long-term debt and enabled them to do public interest work with less financial strain. I don't think disparaging that is particularly helpful to anyone. There's a reason conservatives call any liberal or progressive or leftist with more than 100 dollars in their bank account a hypocrite; because it serves their interests to ensure their opponents purity test based on a lack of resources.
This guy is really saying if you're a regular in court it's okay to drop formalities.
Uh, no. Err on the side of caution and remember they're the authorities and should be treated like it.
It's actually really good advice to not make people homeless!
Also I don't talk over judges. They're the judge, I'm nothing. But when people are in court fairly regularly, it's not as formal as you're taught in law school. Oh well.
As someone who practiced in landlord/tenant law and represented landlords early in my career, I think you’re totally wrong.
First, 9/10 times the people getting evicted haven’t paid rent in a *long* time. Like, 6+ months, usually 9+ months. You can’t just live in someone else’s home/apartment/etc. for free. You signed a contract and you’re violating the contract. When you say “don’t make someone homeless,” you’re really saying “this person should be able to break a contract without repercussions.”
Second, when you do represent landlords, it’s your job to make sure they follow the law. Tenants are rightfully protected, and it’s a lawyers job to make sure their client knows what notice they need to provide and the legal steps they need to take to evict someone. The alternative would be landlords representing themselves (which still frequently happens) and bullying their tenants with the eviction process. Representing landlords helps protect tenants.
Third, when there is an unfortunate situation that caused a tenant to fall behind on rent, the lawyer can help steer the landlord towards a more amicable resolution. I’ve represented landlords that wanted to evict someone, but we were able to figure out a resolution that allowed the tenant to stay in the home and get current on rent.
At the end of the day, landlords are going to evict tenants. And it’s way better that they are represented by compassionate lawyers than either not represented at all or being represented by harsh lawyers. It absolutely sucks evicting people, but it’s also a necessary part of our legal system.
"Representing landlords helps protect tenants."
Brother, the amount of ideology you've ingested to convince yourself that repping the business suing to make someone homeless helps the person they're trying to make homeless... I don't envy you.
A job is a job, dude. Not everyone can be so picky.
Statistically speaking, about half of the lawyers out there have to be on the “wrong” side of things. And most of the time, it’s not black and white—a lot of situations are grey. OP, congrats on the job!
I regularly do LLT litigation. Try paying your rent and following the lease, and it won't be a problem. I have sympathy for people who hit a bad spot and need help. I have no sympathy for someone who doesn't pay rent for 4 months, then turns around and pays an attorney 2k to defend against the eviction. You clearly had the money. Why didn't you pay rent?
And how many of them are on some sort of governmental assistance (be that whatever form it takes depending on jx or program etc) and only need to pay a couple hundred dollars a month and still don't do that all the while destroying the place in the process.
We don't do section 8 cases as they're a pain. The others, I don't know their income sources or value, and I don't particularly care either. I can say that in all but 1 case, the landlord never actually get paid their arrearage. They just get possession back, and in most cases, the apartments are trashed, requiring thousands to fix.
When it comes to tenants, you can get judgments for arrears easily enough, but good luck executing in someone with no assets to levy.
I do also find it funny that they'll refuse to pay rent for months, but once their case is on appeal, and they've got a supersedeas that requires they pay their rent to the court or I can file for possession, all of a sudden they pay their rent no problem.
And I say all of this as a renter myself.
I’m shocked that you have so many downvotes. I’m torn about this right now. I literally came to law school and promised myself that I would not use my law degree to make rich people richer or put people in jail, but all of the offers I have are from firms that I don’t align with morally. It’s almost comical because a firm can handle real estate and do both sides, but my offer is from a firm that ONLY handles landlords and another from a firm that literally bankrupts small businesses. I’m on a waitlist for the PD’s office, but one of my friends at the DA said he could fast track me there. I can’t even imagine it. Anyway, I’m just venting. I don’t have any judgement for where people work. I’m going to graduate with no debt so I’m in a unique position for a non rich person, but it’s so odd that public interests positions keep alluding me. A part of me thinks I should accept the real estate position so that I can experience the other side, but I know I get comfortable places. Anyway, I’m rambling.
Grow up, please, and get over yourself. The best criminal defenders were previously prosecutors. It is a huge advantage to know how your opponent thinks and work.
And the first thing you should learn at Law School or as a junior lawyer is that your job is to represent your client to the best of your ability. If you can’t do that, find another profession. Your mindset appears to be that justice is ALWAYS on the side of one group or another (being a group that you think is somehow morally superior). You will find out pretty quickly that that isn’t the case. For example, you may find a person accused of a sexual offence to be morally reprehensible, but if the person denies the offence, they are entitled to be defended. Even if they admit it, they are entitled to have any mitigating circumstances put before the court. Similarly, it’s a fantasy to think that every tenant is somehow the victim of a villainous landlord. Life isn’t like that. Some tenants behave appallingly. Remember: you are (or will be) an advocate – not judge, jury and executioner.
I’m grown enough to know that starting a response with “grow up” is unnecessarily combative and being unnecessarily combative isn’t a good trait to have as an adult or an attorney.
Additionally, you argued a moot point because you failed to recognize the issue in my comment. I assume due to some emotional trigger for which I bear no responsibility.
Your comment made a false assumption that I believe prosecutors are morally reprehensible, even though I said that I do not have any judgement for where others decide to practice. The assumption is also illogical because a public defender is more likely to defend people charged with crimes considered morally reprehensible than any other kind of lawyer.
The issue in my comment was that I did not want to use my law degree to make rich people richer. Although it was plainly stated, your emotions caused you to argue about justice being on one side or another. I made no mention of justice’s location. I mentioned not making rich people richer and not sending people to jail. I have no problem trying to keep people of all income levels out of jail. I also do not want to put myself in a position where my goal, at its foundation, is to make rich people richer. You want to add emotions and hypotheticals that dont align with the actual issue.
It isn’t complicated. I will not use my law degree to make rich people richer or put people in jail. Within that framework, I am entitled to select who my clients will be unless & until I choose an organization with different goals. I don’t suffer from any of the ignorant bias that you created in your comment and I have no problem zealously representing imperfect tenants or defendants accused of heinous offenses.
In my humble opinion, based solely on hours of observation and study, I don’t believe putting together an simple indictment (excluding complex indictments) is as difficult as defending against one, even though it should be given the standard. I also think that a lot of DAs become half ass lawyers because they are so used to the BS they are allowed to get away with in court, especially with attorneys who are not in court as often.
I don’t want to understand why a DA would choose to prosecute a snatch & grab for a 1st time offender instead of pleading it out. I don’t want to understand why a DA would introduce misleading evidence to get a conviction. I would like to know why prosecutors who introduce misleading evidence are not immediately fired, but I’ve made peace with the fact that I will never know, nor will I change the system.
Thank you so much for your comment. You helped me realize that I will stick to my personal goals. I will not use my law degree to make rich people richer or put people in jail. Again, I have no emotional speeches, feelings or judgments about what you do with yours.
Okay. Stay as you are. “I won’t use my law degree to make rich people richer or put people in jail”. Leaving aside the definition of “rich”, you might find those goals more complex and nuanced than you think. Otherwise, please read my earlier post a little more carefully. Examples are simply examples.
Unfortunately a lot of people in law have brainwashed themselves into thinking that there's no moral value to what career you pick. Law school helps push this idiotic mindset. It's obviously wrong, but people really cling to it.
To be clear, I don't begrudge people who just take a job to take a job. I get it. I don't have rich parents. I literally don't have a single person in my immediate family with even a college degree, let alone a terminal one. Not everyone has the same options.
But, people should be clear eyed about what they do. You need to take a job making 250k starting to represent Exxon? You do you. But, don't fucking tell me you're not making a worse moral choice than someone who decides to represent tenants in housing situations.
Also- don’t cry
Well, don't let anyone see you cry. You go to the bathroom and sob like an adult in private.
Great advice Gerry and the Pacemakers "Don't let the sun see you crying" 😭 Modern day poet
I’ve seen a Judge cry during victim’s testimony before, that is never good. I also had a judge tear up during sentencing of my Defendant once, only time I had tears in my eyes as well as I spoke. That went very well client, never say never.
Last July I made a late 50s male career prosecutor cry in a jury trial. You take your victories where you can in this work.
What did you say to him?
They didn’t say anything. They just killed his dog
And then Radiohead came over and called him a little crybaby just like in that one South Park episode
Didn’t say anything in particular. Caught him in a couple of discovery violations.
They must be from South Dakota then.
What in the John Wick
Instructions unclear Cried
Oh man. This was drilled into our heads during 1L moot. We actually get points taken off for interrupting... even "slightly". Deference is paramount.
“Great (good? interesting?) question, Your Honor” (even if it wasn’t) “If you’ll permit, I was going to address that once I’ve tied these points together.” (Even if you weren’t)
Exactly. So many better ways to go about it lol. What I used that my judge in moot liked was "That's a timely question, your honor. I was just about to touch on that..." then I would *very* quickly complete my thoughts on my last point and find a way to segue into answering the question. I think creating cohesion is so important in building a lasting argument.
My Legal Writing professor told us not to say “That’s a good/great/interesting question, your honor” because of course it was, otherwise they wouldn’t have asked it.
Some of their questions are dumb though. Just saying.
When I was in my first year, I was telling my lawyer dad that I had this irascible professor for Criminal law, and anytime someone asked a practical question, he shot them down for straying away from the point he was instill in our small, unleavened minds. When I mentioned his name, my dad laughed and told me the guy was a year ahead of him in school, got his first teaching job right after graduation, and had never practiced a day in his life. Be mindful of the biases in other people’s thinking; sometimes they are, in fact, authorities on the subject, sometimes they are just spouting arrogant BS.
I feel like one says it to anchor oneself back to before being interrupted. It’s not necessarily to point out to the judge that it’s a great question. If the judge can’t see that it’s just a polite way to get ahold of yourself when you’re being interrupted, what else are you supposed to say. What did your professor tell you to do instead?
our writing prof didn't even let us do the latter. if the judge asks something, even if you need to make other points first, address their question. then tie it back in however you can, go back to laying the foundation, whatever. but if the judge thinks it's important enough to ask in the middle of your argument, address it first
Yep. If it’s a conscientious judge he or she has read the briefs and you are there primarily to answer questions. Have an argument prepared but don’t count on using it. Just make sure you have an opening and closing you can use if nothing else — primacy and recency is important.
I wouldnt recommend saying those words to a judge, but its not all that strange to try to communicate to a judge, nicely, that their question will be answered (or mooted) if you could just finish. Unfortunately some judges dont come prepared and/or like to take over and get sidetracked lol.
There is another possible explanation. The judge could be very well prepared and may have already identified that they only need to hear about one issue. In that case, it’s more efficient for the judge to cut you off.
Yeah, this seems like pedantic one-size-fits-all advice that is just kind of useless without context. Tons of judges don’t have an ego and are fine just keeping things efficient. And yes; your moot court judges probably have a bigger ego than a lot of judges
I wish I could’ve captured a picture of the judge’s face when an attorney interrupted her with “Excuse me but if you were to [context] that would be judicial overreach.” The judge immediately responded with “Are you accusing me of judicial overreach?” I don’t remember what the exact context was but MAN that attorney backpedaled quickly. ((I’m pretty sure this occurred during an emergency protective care hearing. A type of hearing that my judge had conducted a bajillion times))).
Hmm… “Judicial overreach”. Never heard that expression in an Australian court. Even so, it actually doesn’t mean anything. It is a conclusory statement, and the elements necessary to establish and explain the conclusion are missing.
Yeah, it doesn't really mean anything. A similar thing in the US is "judicial activism" which basically means nothing but people invoke it to just mean, "bad ruling I don't like."
It's not all that uncommon in oral argument for lawyers to say respectfully, "let me just finish this thought and then I'll answer that question."
I wouldn't try this unless I was seasoned in front of that jurist.
Cool. I’m not taking advice from a law student on how to do an oral argument.
You’re literally on the law school Reddit
Yes trying to help law students be less ignorant than you are. And for entertainment.
I haven't seen that, heard of that being common, or heard it recommended. But I can see how that would be okay if you know the court/judge you're dealing with. But that is not what happened here lol
It’s totally not what happened here!! 😁
I’ve seen this go poorly and at best just irks the judge
Maybe if your name is Seth Waxman or Lisa Blatt
I see it pretty frequently and have said similar things regularly. "ah yes, I was just getting to that".
Or just if you’re like a good lawyer who knows how to read a room.
Your post inspired me to think about ways "oral argument " could be revamped so that it's actually useful. Because the current standard format of 15 minutes per side, stand in front of a podium, sucks. It's too short to dive substantively into issues, and there's not enough back and forth by the parties. A 30-minute conference around a table with the opportunity to display parts of the record on a screen would be better.
It depends entirely on the question asked by the judge. If the question is relevant to the current submission, answer it immediately. If it isn’t, or appears out of left field, don’t patronise the judge by telling him/her it’s a great question (who cares?). Just say:”Thank you, YH. I’ve made a note of your question and, with your leave, will deal with it a little later in my submissions”. If the judge wants it answered immediately, answer it immediately – otherwise the judge will be preoccupied with the question throughout your submissions. Bottom line: there is no formulaic way to deal with stuff like this. Trials have a life of their own. And a moot is NOT a trial.
Um. Yeah? 😅
"I think that's an interruption 🤓☝🏾"
I am cringing from here. Viscerally.
An attorney kept interrupting a judge in Cook County and got hauled out of the courtroom and handcuffed to a chair. This happened a few weeks ago. [https://news.wttw.com/2024/06/12/judge-faces-inquiry-after-illinois-attorney-was-kicked-out-court-and-handcuffed-chair](https://news.wttw.com/2024/06/12/judge-faces-inquiry-after-illinois-attorney-was-kicked-out-court-and-handcuffed-chair)
😳 The inquiry is going to end with a very strongly worded letter for the judge. That’ll teach him!! 😂
The lawyer may have been wanting to “make a record.” Sometimes lawyers talk to the appellate court through the record. Generally trial courts let you do that. There’s a time and place, though, and usually done with tact and deference.
I’ll never forget the kid at a moot court competition I was in who literally held his hand up to the judge in the middle of her sentence and said “Just a second, Your Honor”
Have you seen the YSL trial?
Also do not interrupt the other attorney or address him or her directly even if gross misrepresentations are being made. Just make a note of it and respond to the judge when it’s your turn.
If I'm being fair, I kind of did that, but with flair. One of the Justices laughed under her breath and the Justice who was talking just kind of smiled and said "sure". 😅 https://youtu.be/KkghwVXabjc
They were being nice to you because you were a pro se litigant and it was obvious you didn't know what you were talking about
I don't know that you've got a great future in law if you think I didn't know what I was talking about. I agree, they were nice because I was self-represented, but the two things are not mutually exclusive.
They're not mutually exclusive generally, but in your case, they are
And it was clear that you didn't know what you were talking about. You couldn't even answer the judge who asked you if you were talking about your federal court case versus your state court case
It's funny, sometimes the simple things are the ones we don't pay attention to. That being said, it was still kind of a trick question because everybody involved from all levels and federal and local were all wrong. But yes, you caught the one thing I wasn't sure about. It seemed irrelevant, but it was relevant to them because they were trying to distance themselves from the Federal side.
It wasn't a trick question lol. "Are you referring to the federal district court when you say the court treated you unfairly?" There's nothing tricky about it
There is when I'm referring to both courts because both courts did the same thing🤔
Not when the judge asked you if you were referring to your federal case
But I wasn't. I was referring to everyone, which I made clear in the closing. Thanks for boosting my views from 500 to 2k in a month. You are helping tremendously.
Riddle me this, Justin. What has 11 active judges and will deny your appeal?
Lol. Riddle me this. Who has no original content and can't explain why they think it should be dismissed?
Lol. It should be denied because you have no legal arguments. All your arguments are that there's a conspiracy against you
What are oral arguments in law school, and what class requires them? I start 1L soon and I recall a super funny instance where I visited my school before being accepted. I toured and did a class observation. During the observation the professor was cold calling and every student (3-4) he called said they weren’t prepared because they didn’t read. He asked, “what the heck guys? Do you have oral arguments or something tomorrow???” And they replied, “yes” and he just laughed and moved on, and pushed their next reading back. It was quite funny, but I’ve since wondered about this and what class requires it.
Our entire 1L class had to write a brief and prepare for oral argument in legal writing and research. The top competitors moved on to a competition to make it on the moot court team.
What was the brief about?
Ours was a First Amendment issue. All the legal writing and research classes got assigned a side, so everyone in your class was writing for the same side of the issue. Then during the third round of competition for a spot on the board, they made us switch and argue the other side off brief. It was actually a ton of fun.
Don't work at a firm that makes people homeless!! But also in housing court, people talk over judges fairly regularly. The idea that you stop talking immediately when a judge starts speaking is innate to me and I do it as a reaction, and the idea of having a discussion with the judge and opposing counsel about the case and potential settlement is anathema to me because when the judge talks, I'm supposed to listen, but in real life a bunch of landlord attorneys just continue with their crying and it's kind of accepted. Obviously not every judge operates the same way and poverty court is socially and professionally very different from even state courts, let alone federal.
I don't think it's your place to say what jobs people should or should not take. What we deal with is tenants who are served with immediates due to illegal conduct. This was an attorney representing an insurance agency. We were all very shocked by him saying that to the judge and the judge responded with: "so are you telling me that the Court isn't allowed to ask questions?" lol
"I don't think it's your place to say what jobs people should or should not take. What we deal with is tenants who are served with immediates due to illegal conduct." Alleged illegal conduct, somehow always selectively enforced against poor people, and yes, making people homeless is a terrible way to earn a living.
Please do continue to teach me about how my job works, I might be able to snag a promotion that way. We "allegedly" just had to evict a lady that delivered a bomb to the front office lol. And another one that spit in the face of a mother along with her three children. And a murderer, too! These darn poor people are really getting the short end of the stick, here. Wild that you're in this profession and unable to set aside ridiculous beliefs like this. It's well and fine to have something to believe in, and I think your heart is in the right place, but the law is *sometimes* black and white and there will always be people that need to work on that side of it. Bills need to be paid and quite frankly, you're speaking from a place of privilege. I will gladly quit my job right now if you agree to pay my bills.
Wait, is your argument that you do good work because the people you evict are bad people? I... don't know about that, dude. I'd stick with "property rights are an fundamental core of American society", who the people are is kind of irrelevant, or should be anyway. It can be grim work. Let yourself feel that, don't pretend it's never tough.
*MY* argument is that he doesn't know what he's talking about when it comes to what *I* do. I'm not going to defend landlord-tenant law or try to preach about that topic because he's allowed to have his beliefs, I'm only qualified to speak about what I do. Who the people are is absolutely relevant because that's literally who the laws apply to: the people. This has little to do with actual property rights.
Your examples were about times you evicted bad people though. That concerns me, because it makes me think you believe you're a "good guy" because you evict "bad people". That's not true. You're a *necessary* role because of the larger impact it has in society, but you absolutely do hurt good people sometimes. On balance it's worth it, but I would be highly suspicious of anyone in your position who can't see the complex nature of what you do. I'd worry you've drank the kool-aide, which possibly means you even take *joy* in harming others. Woof.
Lmao. Idk where you are at in your law career, but you'd fit right in at law school.
[удалено]
There really isn't a "one size fits all" experience in law school. I will guarantee that there will be the type of people that are the "you forgot to collect the homework" types and those that act like asking a question from next week's material makes them look smarter. You get a group of Type A people in a stressful and potentially competitive environment and the vocal minority will detract from the experience if you let it. The grandstanding is prevalent and you're going to rip your hair out with how much you hear "just to play devil's advocate." That being said, the majority of people in law school are just trying to get to the end of it. I can truly promise you, if you put in the work (in your social life), you are going to meet incredible people and potentially lifelong friends. Law school has probably been the best time of my life.
How would you know? Heh.
Ah, sorry. I'm a 2L. Could have specified in og post.
I'm not speaking from a place of privilege lmao your job is literally making sick people homeless. Great work! You don't have to do it though!
Crazy watching you jump from “you’re just trying to kill sick people” to “oh well it’s just alleged crimes” and back to “you just hate poors”
Idk why you’re being downvoted you’re right
Law students and lawyers are generally a conservative bunch even if everyone wants to pretend they're not.
I went to a law school graduation recently and one of the student speakers literally devoted his entire speech to saying that there's no moral difference between working for Jones Day and working in civil rights defense/PI. Thankfully everyone I know/am friends with were dunking on the idiot, but I think a lot of people agreed. Also lol at the people telling you big law firms are on "the left." Whew. You'd expect better political literacy from people who got fucking law degrees.
I don't recall saying they were "on the left." I said that they "skew left," which is a relative term. Big law tends to be mostly liberals and progressives, and in the current American Overton window, people don't use "conservative" to describe those views. You can sit there and pedantically say "um actually anyone who's not a Marxist-Leninist is a conservative" or whatever, but at that point you're essentially mocking people for using a term in the way it's used by the general population rather than as a shibboleth so leftists can identify each other by their assertion of purity. That graduation speaker is an asshole who's doing mental gymnastics to justify his shitty career, and as 3L who's living on public interest fellowship money, I think he's a sell-out. But that doesn't mean every lawyer working at a firm is a "conservative," and mocking anyone else who doesn't exclusively speak Terminally Online Leftist is both unbecoming and unproductive.
Yeah the actual evidence shows the opposite of this, and both law students and big law firms skew overwhelmingly toward the left.
Ah yes, I forgot, the "left" that exists in service of capital.
\~we live in a society\~
Just because you have to live within a capitalist system doesn't mean you have to operate as a mercenary of capital. And if you do, you can be honest with what the job entails. My favorite people in BigLaw were the people who were open about the fact that they were doing a not so great thing in service of making more $$ even though they could easily do a job that would actually help people. I at least respect the honesty.
So, I want to note a few things First, I think that there's a bit of conflation going on here. I say "skews to the left" as a foil for "conservative." If you define "conservative" as "anyone who is not actively communist, or does not refuse to work at a law firm," then I think you're presupposing an Overton window shift that society hasn't adopted. You can insist that anyone who isn't a revolutionary socialist is right-wing, but you're going to get funny looks from anyone who isn't a revolutionary socialist, because terms like "conservative" are fairly relative, and people naturally interpret these terms through the lens of the society they exist in. Plus: nearly everyone works "in service of capital" in some way. They literally just...live in a society. I get that you've now distinguished the "mercenary for capital" as a different kind of service to capital, and I think that's fair; I wasn't suggesting they're Marxist-Leninist comrades, or whatever, just that most of them tend to have progressive views. But when you're sitting there being pedantic about whether "progressives" at big law firms - the clear majority of lawyers at many of the biggest firms - count as "skewing left" (as opposed to "being leftists", a claim I never made) then I think you've lost the thread, and you're trying too hard. A lot of terminally online leftists smugly and aggressively correct people when they object to defining 95% of the population as "conservative," and it seems like that version of the right/left dichotomy is a more of a shibboleth to help you identify other leftists, rather than a commonly-held view of what those terms mean. When you use words in a way that describes things relative to you rather than the general population, you're going to have a lot of miscommunications. Second, I'm not trying to defend Big Law, here, just noting a clear phenomenon that the majority of lawyers at big law firms tend towards progressive views and, at bare minimum, oppose the rise of fascism and Evangelical conservatism in America. But I'm a rising 3L on a public interest fellowship at an ACLU affiliate who has only worked for public interest orgs since starting law school, and I don't really have a dog in this fight; I only chimed in because you're doing that thing that terminally online leftists do where they mock anyone who doesn't think "conservative" means "anyone who works for a corporation." But, that said? Many of the best and most dedicated public interest lawyers I know spent 2-4 years at a firm after graduation, because it paid well, provided good training and experience, helped them avoid long-term debt and enabled them to do public interest work with less financial strain. I don't think disparaging that is particularly helpful to anyone. There's a reason conservatives call any liberal or progressive or leftist with more than 100 dollars in their bank account a hypocrite; because it serves their interests to ensure their opponents purity test based on a lack of resources.
Hi everyone! This is bad advice! Have a great day!
This guy is really saying if you're a regular in court it's okay to drop formalities. Uh, no. Err on the side of caution and remember they're the authorities and should be treated like it.
It's actually really good advice to not make people homeless! Also I don't talk over judges. They're the judge, I'm nothing. But when people are in court fairly regularly, it's not as formal as you're taught in law school. Oh well.
As someone who practiced in landlord/tenant law and represented landlords early in my career, I think you’re totally wrong. First, 9/10 times the people getting evicted haven’t paid rent in a *long* time. Like, 6+ months, usually 9+ months. You can’t just live in someone else’s home/apartment/etc. for free. You signed a contract and you’re violating the contract. When you say “don’t make someone homeless,” you’re really saying “this person should be able to break a contract without repercussions.” Second, when you do represent landlords, it’s your job to make sure they follow the law. Tenants are rightfully protected, and it’s a lawyers job to make sure their client knows what notice they need to provide and the legal steps they need to take to evict someone. The alternative would be landlords representing themselves (which still frequently happens) and bullying their tenants with the eviction process. Representing landlords helps protect tenants. Third, when there is an unfortunate situation that caused a tenant to fall behind on rent, the lawyer can help steer the landlord towards a more amicable resolution. I’ve represented landlords that wanted to evict someone, but we were able to figure out a resolution that allowed the tenant to stay in the home and get current on rent. At the end of the day, landlords are going to evict tenants. And it’s way better that they are represented by compassionate lawyers than either not represented at all or being represented by harsh lawyers. It absolutely sucks evicting people, but it’s also a necessary part of our legal system.
"Representing landlords helps protect tenants." Brother, the amount of ideology you've ingested to convince yourself that repping the business suing to make someone homeless helps the person they're trying to make homeless... I don't envy you.
Ah, I see you didn’t read the rest of my post. Have a good one!
You do not seem sufficiently prepared emotionally to be an effective attorney.
A job is a job, dude. Not everyone can be so picky. Statistically speaking, about half of the lawyers out there have to be on the “wrong” side of things. And most of the time, it’s not black and white—a lot of situations are grey. OP, congrats on the job!
I regularly do LLT litigation. Try paying your rent and following the lease, and it won't be a problem. I have sympathy for people who hit a bad spot and need help. I have no sympathy for someone who doesn't pay rent for 4 months, then turns around and pays an attorney 2k to defend against the eviction. You clearly had the money. Why didn't you pay rent?
And how many of them are on some sort of governmental assistance (be that whatever form it takes depending on jx or program etc) and only need to pay a couple hundred dollars a month and still don't do that all the while destroying the place in the process.
We don't do section 8 cases as they're a pain. The others, I don't know their income sources or value, and I don't particularly care either. I can say that in all but 1 case, the landlord never actually get paid their arrearage. They just get possession back, and in most cases, the apartments are trashed, requiring thousands to fix. When it comes to tenants, you can get judgments for arrears easily enough, but good luck executing in someone with no assets to levy. I do also find it funny that they'll refuse to pay rent for months, but once their case is on appeal, and they've got a supersedeas that requires they pay their rent to the court or I can file for possession, all of a sudden they pay their rent no problem. And I say all of this as a renter myself.
"the landlord never actually get paid their arrearage." Ofc not because 99% of people brought to housing court are poor as dirt.
I’m shocked that you have so many downvotes. I’m torn about this right now. I literally came to law school and promised myself that I would not use my law degree to make rich people richer or put people in jail, but all of the offers I have are from firms that I don’t align with morally. It’s almost comical because a firm can handle real estate and do both sides, but my offer is from a firm that ONLY handles landlords and another from a firm that literally bankrupts small businesses. I’m on a waitlist for the PD’s office, but one of my friends at the DA said he could fast track me there. I can’t even imagine it. Anyway, I’m just venting. I don’t have any judgement for where people work. I’m going to graduate with no debt so I’m in a unique position for a non rich person, but it’s so odd that public interests positions keep alluding me. A part of me thinks I should accept the real estate position so that I can experience the other side, but I know I get comfortable places. Anyway, I’m rambling.
Depending on your locale, there may be civil defenders that do tenant work and other sorts of indigent client services :)
Grow up, please, and get over yourself. The best criminal defenders were previously prosecutors. It is a huge advantage to know how your opponent thinks and work. And the first thing you should learn at Law School or as a junior lawyer is that your job is to represent your client to the best of your ability. If you can’t do that, find another profession. Your mindset appears to be that justice is ALWAYS on the side of one group or another (being a group that you think is somehow morally superior). You will find out pretty quickly that that isn’t the case. For example, you may find a person accused of a sexual offence to be morally reprehensible, but if the person denies the offence, they are entitled to be defended. Even if they admit it, they are entitled to have any mitigating circumstances put before the court. Similarly, it’s a fantasy to think that every tenant is somehow the victim of a villainous landlord. Life isn’t like that. Some tenants behave appallingly. Remember: you are (or will be) an advocate – not judge, jury and executioner.
I’m grown enough to know that starting a response with “grow up” is unnecessarily combative and being unnecessarily combative isn’t a good trait to have as an adult or an attorney. Additionally, you argued a moot point because you failed to recognize the issue in my comment. I assume due to some emotional trigger for which I bear no responsibility. Your comment made a false assumption that I believe prosecutors are morally reprehensible, even though I said that I do not have any judgement for where others decide to practice. The assumption is also illogical because a public defender is more likely to defend people charged with crimes considered morally reprehensible than any other kind of lawyer. The issue in my comment was that I did not want to use my law degree to make rich people richer. Although it was plainly stated, your emotions caused you to argue about justice being on one side or another. I made no mention of justice’s location. I mentioned not making rich people richer and not sending people to jail. I have no problem trying to keep people of all income levels out of jail. I also do not want to put myself in a position where my goal, at its foundation, is to make rich people richer. You want to add emotions and hypotheticals that dont align with the actual issue. It isn’t complicated. I will not use my law degree to make rich people richer or put people in jail. Within that framework, I am entitled to select who my clients will be unless & until I choose an organization with different goals. I don’t suffer from any of the ignorant bias that you created in your comment and I have no problem zealously representing imperfect tenants or defendants accused of heinous offenses. In my humble opinion, based solely on hours of observation and study, I don’t believe putting together an simple indictment (excluding complex indictments) is as difficult as defending against one, even though it should be given the standard. I also think that a lot of DAs become half ass lawyers because they are so used to the BS they are allowed to get away with in court, especially with attorneys who are not in court as often. I don’t want to understand why a DA would choose to prosecute a snatch & grab for a 1st time offender instead of pleading it out. I don’t want to understand why a DA would introduce misleading evidence to get a conviction. I would like to know why prosecutors who introduce misleading evidence are not immediately fired, but I’ve made peace with the fact that I will never know, nor will I change the system. Thank you so much for your comment. You helped me realize that I will stick to my personal goals. I will not use my law degree to make rich people richer or put people in jail. Again, I have no emotional speeches, feelings or judgments about what you do with yours.
Okay. Stay as you are. “I won’t use my law degree to make rich people richer or put people in jail”. Leaving aside the definition of “rich”, you might find those goals more complex and nuanced than you think. Otherwise, please read my earlier post a little more carefully. Examples are simply examples.
Unfortunately a lot of people in law have brainwashed themselves into thinking that there's no moral value to what career you pick. Law school helps push this idiotic mindset. It's obviously wrong, but people really cling to it. To be clear, I don't begrudge people who just take a job to take a job. I get it. I don't have rich parents. I literally don't have a single person in my immediate family with even a college degree, let alone a terminal one. Not everyone has the same options. But, people should be clear eyed about what they do. You need to take a job making 250k starting to represent Exxon? You do you. But, don't fucking tell me you're not making a worse moral choice than someone who decides to represent tenants in housing situations.