Wednesday evening, the Moot Court Bar hosted a panel discussion featuring four renowned federal appellate practitioners.

During the “If It Pleases the Court: Federal Appellate Court Panel” moderated by 3L Hollie Duchnowski, the speakers offered their insight for students considering appellate advocacy. Duchnowski, who also coordinated the panel, said a similar event her first year of law school helped her realize her passion for appellate advocacy.

Meet the experts

The panel featured prestigious judges and noteworthy attorneys. “Anytime we have the privilege of having advocates and judges like we have today, is a red-letter day for the law school,” Dean William Hubbard (’77) said.

• Chief Judge Albert Diaz, 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
• Judge J. Michelle Childs (’91 law, masters), U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
• Bill Nettles, former U.S. Attorney for the District of South Carolina
• Tejinder Singh, partner at Sparacino PLLC

Developing the next generation

The panelists gave students advice on getting experience with appellate practice and ways to distinguish themselves in an evolving legal landscape. Singh singled out amicus briefs as a great opportunity to practice appellate writing.

They also spoke about the benefits of a judicial clerkship, particularly the lifelong mentors emerging legal professionals find among their more seasoned colleagues. “It’s one of the most rewarding things you can do as a young lawyer,” Diaz said.

As for what judges seek in law clerks: experiences that indicate aptitude for writing, such as law journal or Moot Court experience, and qualities like confidence, respect, and critical thinking.

“This is a collective enterprise,” Diaz said. “Being willing to speak up and not be afraid to voice an opinion is critically important.”

What to watch

The experts even touched on trends in the legal field, including the impact of generative artificial intelligence.

According to Singh, generative AI used well can quickly and effectively create many iterations, which is helpful for oral argument preparation and can be a great substitute for a moot court.  But he doesn’t rely on it exclusively. “You can’t outsource judgment,” he said.

And while many appellate lawyers are generalists, appellate practice is evolving. Singh encourages young lawyers to distinguish themselves by finding a niche and claiming it.

Getting it right

Diaz estimated appellate courts hear only 10 percent of cases that are filed with the court. The majority of decisions are made based on briefs, leading the panelists to discuss methods of crafting an argument and effective strategies for addressing complex legal issues.

Regarding his approach to appellate cases, Singh said a helpful tactic he uses is to inhabit a “persuadable position,” allowing him to hone in on the aspects of the case that are most divisive.

Singh also discussed the different roles of judges and lawyers. “Judges want to get the answer right in every case,” Singh said. “Lawyers want our client to win.”

And although their responsibilities differ, both the judges and the attorneys factor in the possibility of the case being heard by the U.S. Supreme Court. To that end, attorneys consider how to win on various grounds, while judges from lower courts ensure their own judgement follows precedent.