At the ripe old age of 34, Goldstein has already argued 14 cases before the U.S. Supreme Court and was recently named one of the nation's leading attorneys under 40 by the National Law Journal. Goldstein is modest about his success and says he was simply lucky that he discovered early in his legal career that he wanted to focus on the Supreme Court (during law school, he thought he wanted to be a trial attorney). Goldstein started his firm from his home in Washington, DC, in 1999, when he was 28. Amy Howe, his partner in matrimony and business, joined the firm a year later. "I just decided that I really wanted to be able to focus; and if I didn't go out on my own, it would always be just a side show to what I was trying to do," he said. "I knew if I really wanted the opportunity to do this, I was going to have to give it a whirl." Although Goldstein now has many paying clients, during the early days of the firm, most of his work was pro bono—so he could gain experience and build a reputation for arguing in the Supreme Court. During the first six months of operation, the firm's revenue was just $15,000. Last year, Goldstein & Howe raked in more than $1 million in revenue, Goldstein said. This term, Goldstein successfully argued Smith v. City of Jackson. In that case, the court ruled that employer policies that have adverse affects on older workers could make them liable to discrimination claims. He also successfully argued Spector v. Norwegian Cruise Lines, which resulted in a 5 to 4 ruling that stated international cruise lines operating in U.S. waters must take steps to make their ships accessible to disabled passengers. The firm is waiting hear the ruling on FCC v. Brand X, which pits a small Internet company against the Federal Communications Commission. Goldstein argued for the smaller company and said that a 2002 FCC ruling that gave cable companies the right to ban rivals from their lines gives the big cable companies an unfair advantage. Goldstein's interest in the Supreme Court stems from his experience at Boies & Schiller, Jones Day Reavis & Pogue, and during an internship under National Public Radio's (NPR) Supreme Court correspondent, Nina Totenberg. Goldstein sat second-chair to David Boies during Bush v. Gore. Although unusual, a Supreme Court-focused boutique practice is ideal for a small firm, he said. "It's also very manageable for a small practice," he said. "It's individual briefs; it's not depositions and lots of meetings, lots of travel. You really can do it in a small, manageable environment. And the cases are always different. And each time you're working on something new, and the adversaries are almost always very sophisticated and good. So it's always very challenging." The media experience with NPR has also paid off for Goldstein and Howe (Amy also interned for Totenberg), and they frequently write opinion pieces and are often quoted in the national media on Supreme Court issues. Goldstein and Howe also write and maintain two blogs, the SCOTUS blog and the Supreme Court Nomination blog. Goldstein predicts that Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist will retire in the next few weeks. "The betting money is that the chief justice is going to retire, so we'll have a confirmation," he said, adding that he expected the nomination within a few weeks. "Every year, we say someone will retire, and eventually, we're going to be right," he said. Goldstein and Howe are co-founders and instructors at the Stanford Law School Supreme Court Litigation Clinic. They both teach Supreme Court Litigation at Harvard Law School. The attorneys met while studying at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Howe pursued a master's degree while Goldstein was at Washington College of Law. She then decided to attend law school several years later. The firm serves as lead counsel, preparing petitions for certiorari and briefs in opposition, as well as briefing and arguing cases on the merits. Unlike Supreme Court practice groups in large law firms, Goldstein & Howe often assists other law firms looking for Supreme Court experts to argue their cases. Although many attorneys only dream of arguing in the Supreme Court, Goldstein said he was not nervous during his first case in the hallowed courtroom. The case was Cunningham v. Hamilton County, and Goldstein was trying to fight a judge's sanction against an attorney in Ohio. It was his first time arguing a case in a courtroom. "We got creamed on the first one, 9 to 0," he said. But Goldstein was convinced that he wanted to pursue Supreme Court cases full time and his skills are more suited to arguing before justices than a jury. "In the Supreme Court, it's sort of more contemplative," he said. "If you get into the Supreme Court twice a year, you're having an incredible year. Think about it this way: I've done 14 Supreme Court arguments, totaling about six hours. So on one level, my entire career can be compressed into your workday. So it's very strange." It takes a lot of time to prepare for those 30 minutes in the court. Goldstein said it's very different to argue before the justices and that he might not be so successful before a jury. "What the justices want in an oral argument is not an incredibly eloquent presentation," he said. "They want very detailed responses to their particular questions. So lots of time you think about the Supreme Court arguments as great oratory, it's just not true. The most successful oral arguments are sometimes very simple, very straightforward, with very clear answers to these questions. That's what the justices really want to hear these days." Howe will likely argue her first case before the Supreme Court next year, he said. Will the partners argue about who gets to argue certain cases? "No, I don't think so," he said. "I've had my fair share, so she's entitled to her turn. I get to hang out at home with our baby."

Rate This Article 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Select    View top rated articles

Printable Version    PDF Version    Email to a Friend    Post A Comment    View Comment    Discuss

	Popular Tags
	Smith  Thomas Goldstein  National Law Journal  Spector  Supreme Court cases  Nina Totenberg  David Boies  attorneys  Federal Communications Commission  National Public Radio

Featured Testimonials

LawCrossing is a site I like very much. Practically perfect. I know what I want and LawCrossing knows it too! Sandra

Facts

LawCrossing Fact #36: LawCrossing features a library full of archived articles, just in case users miss a week.

"We want to hear your thoughts. Please comment on this article (below)!" Comments

Article ID: 940     Article Title: Thomas Goldstein, founding partner Goldstein & Howe Supreme attorney specializes in Supreme Court Comment not found for this article. Comment

Facebook comments:

Enjoyed reading this article? Click here to sign up for News Wire, our weekly newsletter, and you'll receive articles just like this right in your inbox.

Enter your email address and start getting breaking law firm and legal news right now! Every Alert Alert once a day