Legal News

An obscure 9th Circuit rule may help get more young lawyers into the courtroom

By Jason Siegel

The annual Judicial Conference of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals grappled with ways to get more courtroom training for young lawyers in an era of vanishing trials.

In the process, they raised a call for more use of a little-known 9th Circuit rule that guarantees young lawyers, whose firms accept a pro bono appellate appointment, an oral argument opportunity before a circuit panel.

Among the suggestions to get more young lawyers into the court, judges urged lawyers to allow the associates and new partners to handle discovery motions.

Others called for more firms to use pro bono work as a training ground. It was at that point that one session participant reminded the crowd of the obscure circuit pro bono argument guarantee.

For 16 years the 9th Circuit has pledged to give oral argument experience to pro bono lawyers that take up appeals as part of the court program. The majority of cases are immigration appeals. The court handles 125 to 150 per year, according to Cathy Catterson, circuit executive.

The program began in 1992 under then-Chief Judge Clifford Wallace. The advantage is that young associates and even law school students are allowed to argue cases before a 9th Circuit panel as part of the court's pro bono program.

The University of California, Davis Law School and Stanford University Law Schools are among the schools that participate, Catterson said.

The advantage for the court is that the cases have been identified as containing legal issues the judges need to sort out, and they provide a free lawyer to the indigent client, she said.

During the conference discussion, U.S. District Judge William Alsup, of the Northern District of California in San Francisco, cited the common excuses for not allowing young associates to handle courtroom appearances.

They include, client pressure to use partners-only to appear in court, law firm resistance to writing down the cost of training associates; that in some cases the stakes are too high and the pressure to keep up billable hours limits use of associates or fledgling partners.

-- Pamela A. MacLean

Full post as published by Legal Pad | LA on July 31, 2008 (boomark / email).