Litigators Rely on Georgetown Law Program to Ace Their Supreme Court Cases

Summary

The Georgetown Law Supreme Court Litigation Clinic provides experienced guidance and mentoring to law students interested in the intricacies of Supreme Court litigation. More than 600 attorneys, including former Supreme Court clerks and other legal professionals, have taken advantage of the program since it began in 2004.


The Georgetown Law Supreme Court Litigation Clinic (GSCLC) grants students a unique opportunity to understand the complexities of litigating at the Supreme Court. Students in the program gain hands-on experience working with current and former Supreme Court clerks, practicing lawyers, academics, and other professionals. Students can attend sessions on argument preparation and strategy and participate in legal research, draft briefs, and attend moot court sessions.

The GSCLC focuses on developing the legal, practical, and advocacy skills of its students. The program provides cutting-edge legal instruction and lectures on the Supreme Court litigation process. In addition, GSCLC gives students the opportunity to hear experienced Supreme Court litigators discuss their practical approaches to cases. The program also provides valuable mentoring opportunities, allowing students to work closely with professional Supreme Court litigators.

The GSCLC gives students the opportunity to hone their skills in Supreme Court litigation, while also gaining insight into the justices' decision-making process. The program has helped countless alumni become successful Supreme Court litigators. The program also provides much-needed assistance to lawyers and legal professionals who are considering filing Supreme Court cases.

Georgetown Law's Supreme Court Litigation Clinic is a one-of-a-kind program that equips students with the skills and knowledge necessary to become successful Supreme Court litigators. The program offers hands-on experience and mentoring from experienced Supreme Court litigators. Through GSCLC, students gain a better understanding of the Supreme Court litigation process and gain insight from successful litigators. The program also offers valuable resources and assistance to legal professionals considering filing Supreme Court cases.
 

Georgetown Law Program Used by Top Supreme Court Litigators

Supreme Court litigators, like those of any other trade, use a variety of techniques to strengthen their arguments in order to better their chances of succeeding. One such tool is Georgetown Law School's Supreme Court Advocacy Program.

Established in 1985, the Supreme Court Institute of Georgetown Law provides students with the necessary skills for effective appellate advocacy. The program has had an amazing success rate of 91%, helping over 200 litigators with their oral arguments in front of the United States Supreme Court.

The program is an intensive two-week course that prepares law students for participating in Supreme Court practice and policy. Students take classes that cover a wide range of topics, including legal writing, trial advocacy, and appellate oral argument.

The program is the only one of its kind, offering students a chance to participate in moot trial and moot court exercises. It was designed specifically for those who are preparing to be Supreme Court litigators and has produced some of the most influential attorneys in the country.
 

85-Year History of Supreme Court Advocacy at Georgetown Law

Georgetown Law School has been a leader in Supreme Court advocacy since 1935. It is the only school in the United States that actively prepares students for oral argument before the Supreme Court. The Georgetown Law's Supreme Court Institute has offered two-week courses for the past 85 years to equip students with the skills required for Supreme Court litigators.

The program has successfully prepared over 200 litigators for their oral arguments in front of the highest court of the United States. Its success has resulted in a 91% success rate for those who have gone through the program, making it one of the most successful and sought-after Supreme Court advocacy programs in the country.

The Supreme Court Institute of Georgetown Law provides students with the necessary tools to present a successful Supreme Court argument. From legal writing to trial advocacy, the program gives students an opportunity to hone their skills in preparation for oral arguments before the court.

The program is designed to give students an immersive experience in Supreme Court practice and policy. Students receive practical experience in the form of moot trial and moot court exercises. The program provides a unique opportunity to learn from top Supreme Court litigators.

Long after law school is over, the Bar exam vanquished, and a legal career well established, there are still some challenges that a lawyer would never face without rehearsal. Just like the old saying about Carnegie Hall, no one would go before the United States Supreme Court without practicing first.

One place many go for this rehearsal is Georgetown Law's Supreme Court Institute. The institute's Supreme Court Moot Court Program is close to the Supreme Court in more ways that one. Just a few bocks away from the pillared temple on First Street in Washington, DC, the moot court program allows lawyers to sharpen both their arguments and tactics.

A panel of five or six experts presides over a moot session at the institute. The pro bono panel—all of whom review the case briefs and prepare questions beforehand—is made up of former Supreme Court clerks, Georgetown Law professors, and lawyers who have extensive knowledge of the Court. The institute has a 13-member Outside Advisory Board, many of whom also serve on moot panels.

Donald B. Ayer, a member of the advisory board and a partner with Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue, became involved with the institute and the moot court program through the program's founder, Richard Lazarus. Lazarus, now a professor at Georgetown Law, and Ayer had been colleagues at the Solicitor General's office.

Ayer has a wide range of Supreme Court experience. He clerked for Justice William H. Rehnquist for the 1976 term. He was Deputy Solicitor General at the Department of Justice from 1986 to 1988, and was then Deputy Attorney General from 1989 to 1990. In all, Ayer has argued 16 cases before the Supreme Court.

Ayer has sat on Georgetown's moot court panels and also practiced cases before them. Panelists do not try to act like one specific Supreme Court justice, Ayer says, although if a certain question is raised, many in the room know which justice will raise that same issue at the actual Court. Mostly, however, Ayer tries to pinpoint problems in the arguments being made and question the lawyer on the facets of the case.

Roy T. Englert, Jr., a partner with Robbins, Russell, Englert, Orseck & Untereiner, also serves as a panelist and sits on the advisory board. Like the Court itself, panelists are generalists. Panels are not just comprised of specialists on the topic being heard. The panelists' goal is to "just analyze the case," he says.

Englert also works as an adjunct professor with Georgetown Law's Appellate Litigation Clinic. He worked in the Solicitor General's office from 1986 to 1989. In the 1990s, Englert argued several antitrust cases before the Supreme Court. He has argued 14 cases before the Court in all.

Mooting a case benefits lawyers in two ways, says Englert. Just being on their feet and speaking out the case is beneficial. Then, it's the interaction with the panel "justices," with people pushing on the case's weak points, that can help. The questioning refines the lawyer's thinking, sharpens his or her answers, and reveals unanticipated questions, says Englert.

At Georgetown's moot court program, panelists are often "very aggressive" in their questioning, says Ayer, helping to elicit "fast, persuasive answers to tough questions," from the practicing lawyers.

Ayer has argued before the Supreme Court, both for the Solicitor General's office in the 1980s and more recently in private practice with Jones Day. Last autumn, Ayer won his Supreme Court arguments in the case Koons Buick Pontiac GMC, Inc. v. Nigh. Before Ayer argued the case, however, he mooted it at Georgetown.

The moot sessions raise questions that are "really, really helpful," says Ayer. They "give you food for thought; (they) really give you something to think about," he says.

Ayer did make some changes on Koons because of the moot session. While not a complete 180-degree shift, he would "always" make changes after mooting a case, he says. An outside point of view is very important to have, says Ayer, especially when a lawyer has spent such a long and intense time on a specific case.

The Supreme Court puts an emphasis on the value of a short, clear statement, says Ayer. Lawyers must answer the Justices in one or two sentences. While the lawyer may know the issues inside and out and could present a good argument lasting for 10 minutes, at the Supreme Court, you may only have 30 seconds, says Ayer. With only that spec of time, the answer must be there, ready. This is why mooting is important.

Georgetown's moot program serves lawyers and allows students to see the inner workings of developing arguments for the Supreme Court, Ayer says.

Georgetown Law students who attend the moot Supreme Court case sessions can "see lawyers at work; they see the intellectual preparation for an argument at the highest level of our legal system," says Richard Cooper, a partner with Williams & Connolly who serves on panels for the moot court program and the advisory board.

The institute and the moot court program benefit the larger professional legal community by helping "improve the quality of arguments in the Supreme Court and thereby may contribute to the high quality of Supreme Court opinions," says Cooper, via an email interview.

Cooper taught food and drug law at Georgetown Law from 1987 to 1992 and in 1996. He was Chief Counsel at the USDA from 1977 to 1979. In 1977, he was in the Office of Energy Policy and Planning, Executive Office of the President. Cooper also clerked for Associate Justice William J. Brennan, Jr., in the Supreme Court from 1969 to 1970.

Students "see some of the kinds of choices advocates have to make in presenting arguments to an appellate court. They may also learn in some detail the state of the law as to the specific issues in the case that is the subject of the session they observe. It may also be beneficial for students to see their professors interact with practitioners. The students may also see a very good advocate and may learn from that advocate's approach, style, and method," says Cooper.

Another beneficiary of the program is the Court itself, says Ayer. Lawyers, like any other professionals, can only improve with practice. "The Court must appreciate that," says Ayer. For all involved, Ayer says, "it's really a terrific program."