They Don't Need An Appellate Attorney on Boston Legal, So Why Do I?
I am used to blank stares when -- in response to the typical question of “What kind of law do you practice?” -- I tell people that I am an appellate lawyer.
There are no “appellate lawyers” on Boston Legal or Law and Order. Its been awhile since I’ve seen an episode of Ally McBeal, but I don’t recall any there either. Its disconcerting, however, when I get that same stare from my colleagues.
Specialization in appellate law is a fairly recent trend in legal practice. Cases have become more complex (and appellate court justices more impatient) with briefs that merely recite what was originally presented to the trial court or that do not follow the appellate rules of procedure.
Yes. There is are appellate rules of procedure. There is even motion practice in appellate court.
The biggest difference, however, between advocating for a client in trial court versus appellate court, is your audience.
The jury (or the trial court) is focused on the facts of your case. You, as a litigator, are focused on your story. Once you reach the appellate level, however, the justices are not concerned with either the facts necessarily, or your story. They are there to make sure the law is being followed – that the trial court applied the law to the facts of your case properly.
This distinction marks a difference between arguments to an appellate court, versus the arguments you may make as trial counsel to the superior court judge – And, this is where an appellate practitioner can come in handy.
