Table of Contents
Introduction: The Sound of Silence
I can still feel the smooth, cool wood of the lectern under my trembling hands.
It was my first major appeal, the culmination of months of work.
In my folder lay a meticulously crafted, 15-page, color-coded script.
I had memorized it, rehearsed it in front of the mirror, and timed it to perfection.
It was, I thought, a beautiful speech, a fortress of logic and precedent.
I took a deep breath, looked up at the three-judge panel, and began with the traditional opening, the one I had practiced a hundred times.
“May it please the Court, my name is…”
I never finished the sentence.
The Chief Judge, a formidable jurist with a reputation for intellectual rigor, leaned into her microphone.
“Counsel,” she said, her voice calm but sharp, “before you begin, could you direct me to the part of the record that supports the assertion you make in the second footnote on page 47 of your brief?”
Silence.
Not just from me, but the profound, echoing silence of a room where something has gone terribly wrong.
My mind raced, a frantic scramble through the mental file cabinets of the past three months.
Page 47? Footnote two? The fortress of my script crumbled.
The beautiful speech was now a pile of useless paper.
What followed was a humiliating, fumbling exchange where I tried, and failed, to regain my footing.
The argument wasn’t lost in that moment, but my credibility was, and in an appellate court, that is the same thing.
My story, I would later learn, is not an anomaly.
It is a rite of passage for many young advocates, a painful lesson in the vast chasm between preparation and performance.
This personal failure reflects a systemic challenge, one underscored by the stark statistics of appellate practice.
The odds are long.
In a typical year, federal appellate courts resolve a majority of their cases on the merits, but only a small fraction result in reversal.
For private civil appeals, that reversal rate hovers around a daunting 12.4%.1
This number is not an abstraction; it is a testament to the immense institutional inertia and judicial deference that favor affirming the lower court’s decision.
It proves that winning an appeal requires more than simply being “right” on the law.
It demands an extraordinary level of persuasive skill, a mastery of a unique and challenging art form.
The standard advice given to law students and junior lawyers, while well-intentioned, often sets them up for this very failure.
We are told to master legal research and writing, to develop our analytical skills, and to know the record cold.2
This is all essential, but it implicitly encourages the very “recitalist” approach that led to my downfall.
It teaches you how to build the perfect script, but not how to perform when that script is inevitably torn from your hands by the first question from the bench.
This reveals a fundamental conflict at the heart of oral argument, a kind of preparation paradox.
The issue is not a choice between being prepared and being unprepared.
It is a choice between two profoundly different philosophies of preparation: rigid scripting versus flexible mastery.
The paradox is that the very methods often taught as “thorough preparation”—like writing out a full speech—can render an advocate more brittle and less prepared for the dynamic, interactive reality of the courtroom.
The research is replete with warnings from judges and seasoned practitioners: do not read your argument; do not stick to your outline when judges want to go elsewhere; do not treat the argument as a speech.5
The common methods of preparation are fundamentally misaligned with the nature of the event itself.
This misalignment helps explain the low success rates.
The problem is not a lack of effort on the part of advocates, but a misapplication of that effort, born from a deep misunderstanding of the task.
To succeed, one must question the very definition of what it means to be prepared.
Part I: The Epiphany — From the Concert Hall to the Jazz Club
In the aftermath of my public failure, I became obsessed with understanding what went wrong.
I read every article I could find, I watched recordings of arguments by legendary advocates like Carter Phillips and William Lee, lawyers who seemed to navigate the treacherous waters of Supreme Court questioning with effortless grace.9
But the real breakthrough came from an entirely unexpected place.
I was watching a documentary about a legendary jazz pianist, and I was transfixed.
I saw him sit down at the piano, his bandmates taking their places around him.
He began with a simple, familiar melody—a standard that everyone knew.
But then, something magical happened.
He and his band began to transform it, deconstructing and rebuilding the theme in real-time.
They were listening to each other, responding, creating something new, alive, and utterly captivating.
He wasn’t reciting a pre-written score; he was creating within a shared set of rules.
The epiphany struck me with the force of a revelation.
An appellate courtroom is not a concert hall where a soloist performs a prepared recital for a passive audience.
It is a jazz club, where a small group of musicians engages in a dynamic, collaborative, and disciplined improvisation on a pre-established theme.
This new paradigm reframed everything.
Suddenly, the seemingly chaotic and unpredictable nature of oral argument snapped into focus.
The Judges as the Band: The judges are not a passive audience to be lectured at or persuaded through rhetoric.5
They are the other musicians on stage.
Their questions are not interruptions; they are the very substance of the Music. They are invitations to engage, to take a solo, to explore a new harmony or resolve a dissonant chord.7
Often, as you listen closely, you realize the judges are having a conversation with each other
through you, testing theories and trying to persuade their colleagues on the bench.11
The advocate who understands this welcomes questions as the core of the event, not a distraction from it.
The Brief as the “Lead Sheet”: The written brief is not a script to be read aloud.7
Reading your brief is one of the most common and fatal errors an advocate can make.
The brief is the “lead sheet” or “chord chart” used in a jazz performance.13
It provides the essential, unchangeable structure: the melody (your core theory of the case), the harmony (the supporting case law and statutes), and the rhythm (the procedural posture and standard of review).
It is the foundation upon which the live, collaborative improvisation of oral argument is built.
The performance can’t exist without it, but the performance is not a mere recitation of it.
The Goal as a Shared Creation: The goal of the argument is not to “beat” the judges in a debate or to dominate the conversation.
The sole, acceptable purpose of appellate advocacy is to assist the court in its duty: to write a legally sound, well-reasoned opinion that, hopefully, is favorable to your client.14
You are there to have a “constructive conversation” 15, to clarify the record, to test the limits of legal principles, and to collaboratively arrive at the right legal result.
This shift in mindset from recitalist to improviser is the single most important transformation an appellate advocate can make.
It changes the entire approach to preparation and performance, turning an exercise in anxiety into an intellectually stimulating dialogue.
Table 1: The Recitalist vs. The Improviser: Two Models of Oral Argument
To make this paradigm shift concrete, consider the two opposing models.
The Recitalist is doomed to the kind of failure I experienced.
The Improviser is equipped for success.
This table distills dozens of disparate data points—from the prohibition against reading a speech to the importance of welcoming questions—into a clear, comparative framework that provides a mental checklist for any advocate evaluating their own approach.
| Dimension | The Recitalist (The Failed Approach) | The Improviser (The New Paradigm) |
| Core Metaphor | Classical Concert Recital | Live Jazz Session |
| Primary Goal | Deliver a pre-written speech; cover all points. | Engage in a persuasive conversation; address the court’s concerns. |
| View of the Brief | A script to be performed verbatim. | A “lead sheet” providing the theme and structure for improvisation. |
| View of Judges | A passive audience to be lectured. | Fellow musicians to collaborate with. |
| View of Questions | An unwelcome interruption; a distraction. | An invitation to solo; a window into the band’s thinking. |
| Preparation Focus | Memorizing a script; polishing a delivery. | Internalizing themes; anticipating riffs; mastering the fundamentals. |
| Measure of Success | Getting through the prepared remarks. | A genuine, persuasive dialogue that advances the client’s position. |
Part II: Mastering the Standards — The Unbreakable Rules of the Genre
Before a musician can improvise, they must achieve unconscious competence in the fundamentals of music theory.
They must master scales, chord progressions, harmony, and rhythm so deeply that they no longer have to think about them.
They become the language through which the musician expresses ideas.
Attempting to improvise without this foundation results not in music, but in meaningless noise.
Similarly, an appellate advocate cannot effectively “improvise” in the courtroom without an absolute, intuitive mastery of the unyielding rules of the appellate genre.
These are not suggestions; they are the immutable laws of this specific universe.
To ignore them is to be tuned out by the court before you have uttered a single substantive word.
The Immutable Record (The Key Signature)
The record on appeal—comprising the trial transcripts, exhibits, and pleadings—is the fixed universe of facts.
It is closed.
You cannot add a new fact, subtract an inconvenient one, or re-characterize what happened.16
The record is the “key signature” of your musical piece; you are forbidden from playing notes that are not on the page.
This is why an advocate must be intimately familiar with every detail of the record, able to pinpoint the location of key testimony or a crucial exhibit at a moment’s notice.5
Responding to a judge’s question about the record with “I don’t know, Your Honor, I didn’t try the case” is a catastrophic, credibility-destroying error.5
It signals to the court that you are not in command of the basic facts of your own case.
Your entire argument must be tethered to the ground of the existing record.
The Doctrine of Preservation (The Rhythm and Time Signature)
This is perhaps the most critical and unforgiving rule in all of appellate practice.
If an issue was not properly raised and ruled upon in the trial court, the appellate court is generally barred from considering it.17
This is the doctrine of preservation, and it functions as the “rhythm and time signature” of your argument.
It dictates which legal themes are even available to be played.
An unpreserved argument is a non-starter, and raising one demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of the appellate court’s role, which is to review for errors made below, not to conduct a fresh trial.
The mechanics of preservation are a recurring source of anxiety and error for lawyers, which is why having appellate counsel involved during the trial can be so valuable.16
Proper preservation requires specific, timely actions 18:
- Evidentiary Objections: An objection to evidence must be made at the time it is offered, and it must state the specific legal ground for the objection.18 A generic “I object” preserves nothing.
- Offers of Proof: If your own evidence is excluded by the trial court, you must make an “offer of proof”—placing on the record what the evidence would have shown—so the appellate court has something to review.18
- Dispositive Motions: Motions for judgment as a matter of law (or directed verdict) must be made at the close of the opponent’s evidence and renewed at the close of all evidence to preserve a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence.18
- Jury Instructions: Objections to jury instructions must be made on the record before the jury retires to deliberate, and the objection must be specific.18
The Standards of Review (The Style of the Piece)
The standard of review is the lens through which the appellate court examines the trial court’s decisions.
It dictates the level of deference the appellate court must give, and it therefore defines the “style” of the argument you must make.16
Arguing a case without understanding the applicable standard of review is like trying to play a somber ballad with the frantic energy of bebop—it’s stylistically wrong and doomed to fail.
There are three primary standards:
- De Novo Review: This is Latin for “from the new.” It applies to pure questions of law, like the interpretation of a statute or contract. The appellate court gives zero deference to the trial judge and looks at the issue completely fresh. This is your chance to play fast-paced “swing,” as you and the court are on equal footing.
- Abuse of Discretion: This highly deferential standard applies to many of a trial judge’s procedural and evidentiary rulings. To win, you must show that the judge’s decision was not just wrong, but unreasonable, arbitrary, or fanciful. This is a slow, difficult “blues,” where the advocate has the heavy burden of showing the trial judge’s decision was truly beyond the pale of acceptable outcomes.
- Clearly Erroneous: This standard applies to a judge’s findings of fact after a bench trial. It is the most deferential standard and incredibly difficult to overcome. The appellate court will only reverse if it is left with the “definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.”
The intricate web of these procedural rules—the so-called “procedural land mines” 25—are far more than technical hoops to jump through.
They function as a fundamental, non-verbal test of an advocate’s competence and credibility.
Mastery of these rules signals to the court that you are a serious, trustworthy professional who respects the institution and its processes.
Conversely, errors in preservation or a misunderstanding of the standard of review signal carelessness and undermine the substance of your argument before you even begin.17
In a world of overwhelming caseloads, judges and their clerks inevitably use an advocate’s procedural competence as a mental shortcut, a heuristic to gauge the likely quality of the substantive argument to come.
An advocate who has mastered the intricate grammar of appellate procedure has already passed a crucial credibility test, making the judges far more receptive to the music they are about to play.
Part III: Composing the Theme — Writing Your ‘Lead Sheet’
A great jazz performance doesn’t spring from a vacuum.
It is built upon a strong, clear, and compelling composition—the “lead sheet” that contains a memorable melody and a solid harmonic structure.
For the appellate advocate, the brief is that composition.
It is universally regarded as the single most important element of the appeal.12
A brilliant oral argument can rarely save a poorly written brief, but a brilliant brief makes a great oral argument possible.
It is in the brief that the heavy lifting of legal analysis, research, and storytelling is done.
The Art of the Brief: The Foundation of the Performance
Composing an effective brief requires avoiding the common and damaging mistakes that plague so many submissions.
These errors are not merely stylistic; they go to the heart of persuasive communication with a judicial audience.23
- Forgetting Your Audience: Appellate judges are legal generalists. They are brilliant, but they do not know the specifics of your case, your client’s business, or the nuances of the applicable sub-field of law as well as you do. Your job is to educate them clearly and concisely.
- Not Being Brief Enough: The name “brief” is an instruction. Judges are drowning in paper. An argument that is clear, powerful, and concise will always be more persuasive than one that is rambling and repetitive.
- Failing to Get to the Point Quickly: The summary of argument is arguably the most important section. It should tell the judges, right up front, what the core issues are and why you should win.
- Arguing About People, Not the Law: Maintain a professional, objective tone. Ad hominem attacks on opposing counsel or the trial judge are never persuasive and severely damage your credibility.23 Even when a judge’s conduct is the issue on appeal, the argument must focus on the legal error of their actions and rulings, not on personal invective.
- Making Big and Little Mistakes: The two most devastating errors are misstating the facts in the record and mischaracterizing the law.23 These are sins against credibility from which it is almost impossible to recover. Likewise, “little” mistakes like typos, citation errors, and failing to proofread signal carelessness and disrespect for the court.
Issue Triage: Finding Your Melody
The most crucial compositional choice an advocate makes is selecting the theme.
A brief that asserts ten different errors is like a song with no discernible melody—it’s just noise.
The very act of presenting numerous, weak arguments signals to the court that none of them likely have merit.17
As Justice Robert H.
Jackson famously wrote, a lawyer who throws in a “kitchen sink” of arguments “raises a presumption of weakness in all of them.”
The effective advocate is a ruthless editor of their own case.
They perform a rigorous “triage,” selecting only the one, two, or at most three strongest issues for appeal.7
The best arguments lie at the intersection of three factors: (1) strong legal merit, (2) clear preservation in the record below, and (3) a favorable standard of review.
It is far better to advance one powerful argument under a
de novo standard of review than five weak ones under an abuse of discretion standard.
This disciplined selection creates the clear, compelling melody that the oral argument will bring to life.
Knowing Your ‘Bandmates’: Researching the Panel
A good improviser knows the other musicians’ styles, their strengths, and their tendencies.
A great appellate advocate knows their judges.
When the composition of the judicial panel is revealed in advance, researching the judges is not an optional extra; it is a critical part of preparation.20
This research must go beyond simple biography.9
The goal is to understand each judge’s judicial philosophy and their prior jurisprudence on the issues relevant to your case.
Read their opinions.
Read their dissents.
See how they have ruled in similar cases.
Have they authored one of the key cases cited in your brief? Knowing this allows you to tailor your argument and anticipate their questions.
There is no more powerful technique than being able to say, “Your Honor, as you yourself wrote in the Smith decision, the correct standard Is…” This shows the court you have done your homework and that your position is consistent with their own prior reasoning, making it much easier for them to agree with you.15
The strategic choices made at the briefing stage do not just support the oral argument; they actively predict its likely course and outcome.
A brief that is focused on a single, powerful theme, is well-structured, and anticipates the court’s questions provides a clear “lead sheet.” This empowers the advocate to navigate the improvisation of oral argument with confidence, treating every question not as a threat, but as an opportunity to return to that strong central melody.
Conversely, a scattered, multi-issue brief preordains a defensive, chaotic oral argument.
It forces the advocate to defend seven different, weak positions, making a coherent and persuasive performance impossible.
The discipline of issue triage in the brief is therefore the single most important preparatory act for a successful oral argument.
Part IV: The Performance — The Art of the Argument
The house lights are down, the briefs have been read, and the judges are ready.
All the practice, research, and composition now come to life in the live, unpredictable, and intellectually exhilarating “session” of oral argument.
This is where mastery is demonstrated, where the advocate moves from composer to performer.
The Opening Chorus: Starting with Power and Clarity
The first 30 seconds of your argument are critical.
You must establish your theme and your credibility immediately.
This is not the time for a slow, meandering introduction.
It is the time for a powerful opening chorus that grabs the court’s attention.
The performance begins with proper etiquette: “May it please the Court…”.6
Then, you must provide a concise, persuasive roadmap that tells the court exactly what you are asking for and the one or two most compelling reasons why they should grant it.15
For example: “We ask this Court to reverse the summary judgment order.
The trial court committed a reversible error of law when it misinterpreted the plain language of the statute, a legal question this Court reviews
de novo.” This opening should be memorized to ensure a flawless, confident launch, setting a strong, positive tone for the entire argument.30
Listening is Leading: The Heart of Improvisation
In a jazz ensemble, the best musicians are often the best listeners.
They are constantly reacting and responding to what the other players are doing, building a collective creation.
In an appellate oral argument, listening is the paramount skill.
The questions from the bench are the entire point of the exercise.
Questions are not interruptions; they are a gift.7
They are a precious window into the court’s thinking, revealing the judges’ concerns, their doubts, and the issues they believe are dispositive.5
As noted before, judges often use questions to debate with each other, floating trial balloons or seeking ammunition to persuade a colleague in the post-argument conference.11
The advocate’s job is to listen intently, to understand the question behind the question, and to provide the answer that helps an ally on the bench or persuades a skeptic.
The advocate who plows ahead with their prepared remarks, ignoring the clear signals from the court, is not leading; they are demonstrating that they are not listening.
“Yes, and…”: The Technique of Persuasive Response
The core technique for handling the dynamic interplay of questions comes not from law, but from improvisational theater.31
The “Yes, and…” principle is the key to a fluid, persuasive response.
The advocate accepts the premise of the judge’s question (“Yes, Your Honor…”) and then builds on it to pivot back to their core theme (“…and that is precisely why the plain language of the statute must control in this case”).
This technique allows you to engage respectfully while still advancing your argument.
This approach synthesizes all the best practices for answering questions from the bench:
- Never say “I’ll get to that later.” This is perhaps the most cardinal sin of oral argument. You must answer the judge’s question immediately and directly. Go where the judge wants to go.5
- Start with “Yes” or “No” whenever possible, then provide your concise explanation. This shows you are not being evasive.6
- Don’t fight hypotheticals. Judges use hypotheticals to test the logical limits and future implications of the rule you are proposing. Embrace them. Use them as an opportunity to demonstrate the strength and coherence of your position.20
- Correct judicial misstatements of the record gently and respectfully. The best way to do this is to take the blame upon yourself: “Your Honor, I apologize if I was unclear in my brief, but the record at page 27 indicates that the witness testified to the contrary.” This corrects the error without making the judge feel defensive.20
The Art of the Strategic Concession (The “Blue Note”)
Perfect cases are rare.
Almost every appeal has an unfavorable fact or a difficult precedent.
Acknowledging these weak points, rather than trying to hide or deny them, builds immense credibility.
It shows the court that you are a reasonable, honest, and trustworthy guide to the law and the facts.
You do not need to win every point to win the appeal.8
Be prepared to strategically concede weak arguments to focus the court’s attention on your strongest ground.7
This is the “blue note” in music—a moment of tension or dissonance that, when skillfully resolved, makes the overall harmony more powerful and emotionally resonant.
A candid concession on a minor point can make your advocacy on the major, dispositive point all the more persuasive.
It is here that the jazz metaphor proves its superiority over another common but flawed analogy for legal argument: the chess match.11
Chess is a zero-sum, adversarial game where the goal is to defeat an opponent.
An advocate who sees oral argument as chess will treat judges as adversaries and their questions as attacks.
This mindset is profoundly counterproductive.
Oral argument is a collaborative exercise where the goal is to
persuade an ally.14
The advocate who sees it as jazz will treat judges as collaborators and their questions as invitations to engage in a shared creative process.8
The chess player fights hypotheticals and dodges questions.
The jazz improviser welcomes them as part of the Music. Adopting the jazz metaphor aligns the advocate’s psychological stance with the best practices of persuasion, transforming a potentially confrontational posture into a powerfully collaborative one.
Part V: The Coda — Concluding with Professionalism and Grace
Every great musical performance needs a strong, decisive ending.
The “coda” is the final, memorable passage that brings the piece to a satisfying close.
It is the last impression you will leave with the court, and it must be delivered with professionalism and grace.
The Final Refrain: The Conclusion
You must end as crisply and clearly as you began.
When the bailiff or the Chief Judge signals that your time has expired, you must stop speaking immediately, even if it is mid-sentence.
You then ask for permission to conclude: “Your Honor, I see my time has expired.
May I briefly conclude?”.6
The conclusion itself should not be a lengthy summary of your entire argument.
The court has read the briefs and heard the exchange.
The conclusion should be a direct, powerful restatement of the specific relief you are requesting and the single most compelling reason why the court should grant it.23
For example: “For these reasons, we respectfully request that the Court reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand for a new trial.” Then, simply say “Thank you,” and sit down.
Professional Courtesy: Respecting the Venue and the Players
Professionalism is the bedrock of credibility.
It encompasses your respect for the institution of the court, for the individual judges, and for your opposing counsel.
Tone and civility are paramount in appellate advocacy.17
Ad hominem attacks, sarcasm, and hyperbole are anathema to the process and will only serve to alienate the court.7
The consequences of disrespect can be severe.
Courts have stricken briefs, imposed sanctions, and referred attorneys for disciplinary action for using disrespectful language about a trial judge or opponent.26
This is not merely about being polite; it is about being effective.
The advocate’s demeanor must be one of “calm, professional composure” 8 and genuine collaboration.33
You are an officer of the court, and you must conduct yourself accordingly.
The Court-Centered Approach: Your Ultimate Role
This philosophy brings the entire paradigm full circle.
Your ultimate purpose in that courtroom is to be a helpful, reliable, and expert guide for the court as it navigates a difficult legal problem.14
Your entire performance, from the first page of your brief to your final “thank you,” should be oriented toward one goal: making the judges’ job easier and helping them reach the correct, just result under the law.
When you see your role not as a combatant but as an assistant to the court, your entire approach to advocacy changes for the better.
Ultimately, all the disparate rules and tips—from the technicalities of procedural compliance and the demand for factual accuracy to the necessity of civility and the power of strategic concessions—are not just a random collection of best practices.
They are all manifestations of a single, unifying principle: an appellate advocate’s only true currency is credibility.
Every action taken, from writing the brief to answering a question, either builds or erodes this finite and precious asset.
Misstating a fact destroys it.23
Ignoring a procedural rule undermines it.17
Acknowledging a weak point enhances it.7
Disrespectful language obliterates it.26
Professionalism, honesty, and diligence are not just abstract virtues; they are strategic imperatives.
The advocate who understands that their primary job is to build and spend credibility wisely has grasped the fundamental secret to persuasive appellate advocacy.
Conclusion: Finding Your Voice
I often think back to that first, failed argument.
The memory of that crushing silence still stings.
But I also contrast it with a more recent argument before a different panel.
The night before, I wasn’t memorizing a script.
I was reviewing my themes, my “lead sheet,” thinking about the judges on my panel and the questions they were likely to ask.
When I stepped to the lectern the next day, the fear was gone.
It was replaced by the intellectual thrill of anticipation.
When the first question came—and it came quickly—I was ready.
It was an invitation to begin the Music.
The journey from a rigid “Recitalist” to a flexible “Improviser” is the most important one an appellate advocate can take.
This framework is not an excuse to be unprepared.
On the contrary, it demands a higher and deeper form of preparation—one based on the absolute mastery of the fundamentals, the flexibility to adapt to any question, and a collaborative spirit that seeks to assist, not dominate.
The goal is not to mimic a famous lawyer or a particular jazz musician.
The goal is to use the Improviser’s framework to find your own authentic, persuasive, and credible voice before the court.
It is in that voice, grounded in mastery and animated by a genuine desire to help the court find the right answer, that true advocacy is Found.
Works cited
- Issues When Considering New Counsel on Appeal – The Florida Bar, accessed on August 13, 2025, https://www.floridabar.org/the-florida-bar-journal/issues-when-considering-new-counsel-on-appeal/
- FAQs | Answers You Need – The Appellate Project, accessed on August 13, 2025, https://theappellateproject.org/faqs
- Litigation: Appellate – Harvard Law School, accessed on August 13, 2025, https://hls.harvard.edu/bernard-koteen-office-of-public-interest-advising/about-opia/what-is-public-interest-law/public-interest-work-types/litigation-appellate/
- Appellate Litigation: Recommended Classes, Valuable Skills & Career Paths – Vault, accessed on August 13, 2025, https://vault.com/blogs/vaults-law-blog-legal-careers-and-industry-news/appellate-litigation-recommended-classes-valuable-skills-career-paths
- The Do Nots of Oral Argument – American Bar Association, accessed on August 13, 2025, https://www.americanbar.org/groups/litigation/resources/newsletters/minority-trial/do-nots-oral-argument/
- Tips on Oral Advocacy | Duke University School of Law, accessed on August 13, 2025, https://law.duke.edu/life/mootcourt/tips
- 7 tips on appellate oral argument: perspectives from the bench & bar – JAMS, accessed on August 13, 2025, https://www.jamsadr.com/files/uploads/documents/articles/thompson-david-dailyjournal-7-tips-on-appellate-12-2021.pdf
- Six Tips for Appellate Oral Arguments – Frost Brown Todd, accessed on August 13, 2025, https://frostbrowntodd.com/six-tips-for-appellate-oral-arguments/
- Carter G. Phillips | People – Sidley Austin LLP, accessed on August 13, 2025, https://www.sidley.com/en/people/p/phillips-carter-g
- William F. Lee – WilmerHale, accessed on August 13, 2025, https://www.wilmerhale.com/en/people/william-lee
- Inside the Oral Argument Obsession: Learning from Appellate Recordings, accessed on August 13, 2025, https://www.gentrylocke.com/article/confessions-of-an-oral-argument-junkie-lessons-learned-from-listening-to-recordings-of-appellate-arguments/
- Step 5: Oral argument | California Courts | Self Help Guide, accessed on August 13, 2025, https://selfhelp.courts.ca.gov/appeals/step-5-oral-argument
- The Invisible Artists of Copyright Jurisprudence: Joint Authorship in Jazz Improvisation under Canadian Law, accessed on August 13, 2025, https://www.cba.org/sections/intellectual-property/resources/the-invisible-artists-of-copyright-jurisprudence-joint-authorship-in-jazz-improvisation-under-canad/
- A COURT-CENTERED APPROACH TO APPELLATE ADVOCACY …, accessed on August 13, 2025, https://adjtlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/ACourt-CenteredApproachtoAppellateAdvocacy.pdf
- Tips for appellate oral arguments? : r/publicdefenders – Reddit, accessed on August 13, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/publicdefenders/comments/1g8283y/tips_for_appellate_oral_arguments/
- Why It’s Important to Work with a Law Firm with a Dedicated Appellate Practice, accessed on August 13, 2025, https://www.conroysimberg.com/blog/why-it-s-important-to-work-with-a-law-firm-with-a-dedicated-appellate-practice/
- The Top Five Reasons to Have Separate Appellate Counsel, accessed on August 13, 2025, https://www.mcneeslaw.com/top-five-reasons-separate-appellate-counsel/
- 5 Issues for Every Trial Lawyer, From the Appellate Perspective – Ogletree, accessed on August 13, 2025, https://ogletree.com/insights-resources/blog-posts/5-issues-for-every-trial-lawyer-from-the-appellate-perspective/
- Who’s the best appellate lawyer you know, and what makes them so good? – Reddit, accessed on August 13, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/Lawyertalk/comments/1kvj773/whos_the_best_appellate_lawyer_you_know_and_what/
- Top Tips for Top-Notch Oral Argument Answers – American Bar Association, accessed on August 13, 2025, https://www.americanbar.org/groups/judicial/resources/appellate-issues/archive/top-tips-top-notch-oral-argument-answers
- Understanding the Art of Appellate Advocacy: Why Trial Counsel Should Engage Experienced Appellate Counsel as a Matter of Professional Responsibility and Legal Strategy – The Florida Bar, accessed on August 13, 2025, https://www.floridabar.org/the-florida-bar-journal/understanding-the-art-of-appellate-advocacy-why-trial-counsel-should-engage-experienced-appellate-counsel-as-a-matter-of-professional-responsibility-and-legal-strategy/
- Issues & Appeals | Practices – Jones Day, accessed on August 13, 2025, https://www.jonesday.com/en/practices/issues–appeals
- Common Mistakes on Appeal – Faegre Drinker, accessed on August 13, 2025, https://www.faegredrinker.com/webfiles/common_mistakes_on_appeal.pdf
- Key Factors to Consider When Choosing an Appellate Lawyer – Jason Ostendorf Law Office, accessed on August 13, 2025, https://www.ostendorflaw.com/blog/?p=1530
- What Is A Florida Appeals Lawyer? – Federal Appellate Attorney, accessed on August 13, 2025, https://www.jscappeal.com/florida-appellate-lawyer/
- The Dangers of Appellate Advocacy – The Bar Association of San Francisco, accessed on August 13, 2025, https://www.sfbar.org/blog/the-dangers-of-appellate-advocacy/
- The Don’ts of Oral Argument – DigitalCommons@NYLS, accessed on August 13, 2025, https://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1002&context=fed_courts_practice
- Alan Dershowitz – Wikipedia, accessed on August 13, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Dershowitz
- Judge Biographies – U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, accessed on August 13, 2025, https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/home/the-court/judges/judge-biographies/
- The Art of Oral Argument – Duke Law School, accessed on August 13, 2025, https://law.duke.edu/students/orgs/mootcourt/hardt/downloads/Part2.ppt
- Freeze! Using Theatre Improvisation Techniques to Practice Oral Argument – ResearchGate, accessed on August 13, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/256017911_Freeze_Using_Theatre_Improvisation_Techniques_to_Practice_Oral_Argument
- Why You Need a Lawyer: The Chess Game of Law #lawyers #trustlitigation #californialaw #podcastclips – YouTube, accessed on August 13, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/shorts/oFVxl1RN0J0
- The Complete Appellate Advocate: Beyond Brief Writing, accessed on August 13, 2025, https://www.americanbar.org/groups/judicial/resources/appellate-issues/archive/complete-appellate-advocate-beyond-brief-writing/
