Jenner & Block Associate Argues Her First Case - In the Supreme Court
Lindsay Harrison at One First Street. Photo by Patrice Gilbert.
To paraphrase the controversial Campari ads at issue in Hustler Magazine v. Falwell (aka The People vs. Larry Flynt), everyone remembers “their first time” — arguing in open court, that is. It’s a rite of passage that all young litigators must go through. At large law firms, associates (or even junior partners) typically tackle something minor for their first oral argument — e.g., a non-critical discovery motion — and then work their way up the ladder.
But that’s not the case for everyone; some people start at the top. Meet Lindsay C. Harrison. She’s a fifth-year associate in the D.C. office of Jenner & Block, who just had her very first oral argument — which happened to be in the U.S. Supreme Court. On Wednesday, she appeared before the nine justices to argue the case of Nken v. Mukasey (or, technically, Nken v. Filip; more on the name changes later).
Read our interview with Lindsay Harrison, after the jump.
ATL: First things first. What did you wear? There has been some controversy over how women oral advocates should dress when appearing before the Court.
LCH: I wore a black pantsuit. I was not about to wear a skirt, since they dispensed with that requirement and permitted women to wear pants a few years ago. If women don’t take advantage of that opportunity, it sets a bad precedent. And I wore pearls — my concession to formality.
ATL: You must be one of the youngest people ever to argue before the Court. Have you done any research to figure out where you fall?
LCH: I’m definitely not the youngest. The woman who argued Roe v. Wade, Sarah Weddington, was 26 at the time. Tom Goldstein was 29 when he argued his first case. I turned 30 on January 5.
ATL: Okay, on to more substantive matters. Tell us a little bit about the case. What is the question presented by Nken?
LCH: When an immigrant in deportation proceedings has an appeal pending in federal court, what is the standard the court should use to decide whether the immigrant can stay in this country pending the decision in their case or whether they’ll get deported before the decision is made?
ATL: What’s at stake in this case?
LCH: The interest of my client is the same as many asylum-seekers in his position. He’s just been subject to error after error in the immigration court. He needs his day in federal court, where he can get a reasoned decision.
Think about all the people who have had their cases reviewed in the immigration courts, where decisions can often be arbitrary. It makes no sense to send them back to countries they’re fleeing from due to persecution, while they’re waiting for a [federal Article III] court to hear their case for the first time.
In particular, my client, Jean Marc, faces arrest, beating, and possibly even death if he is sent back to Cameroon, where he was a democratic activist.
ATL: Given what’s at stake, the fact that this was your first court argument, and the fact that it was in the Supreme Court, were you nervous? You previously told Am Law Daily that you were more excited than nervous. Was that the case on the day of the argument?
LCH: I was still surprisingly calm. I was making jokes until the minute before the argument started. Then I felt trepidation, when the justices walked in. You see the nine of them, and you’re standing right there in front of them. That moment is terrifying.
ATL: How did you prepare for the argument?
LCH: I did five full-dress moots, including one at Georgetown, one at Public Citizen, one at Akin Gump, and two internal ones at Jenner. There were usually about six people on each panel. On the first one I was a little shaky; the learning curve was pretty steep.
I did the last one on the Sunday morning before my Wednesday argument. Six partners in our appellate group came into the office, on the Sunday morning of inauguration weekend, to conduct my moot: Don Verrilli, Paul Smith, Ian Gershengorn, Bill Hohengarten, Jared Freedman, and David DeBruin. They all stayed for three or four hours. A fellow associate, Julia Martinez, participated as well.
The support from the firm has just been amazing. I don’t know how many hours as a firm we’ve billed, but I’ve billed at least 800 hours on this case, all pro bono. [Ed. note: The 800 hours includes the Fourth Circuit briefing; Lindsay didn’t bill 800 hours in eight weeks.]
ATL: How did you wind up with this case?
LCH: I took the case originally as a Fourth Circuit appeal, hoping to get an argument out of it. We get emails all the time about pro bono opportunities, and I responded to one. Jean Marc’s case seemed particularly meaningful because I felt the immigration courts had seriously erred.
In the course of briefing the Fourth Circuit appeal, we asked for a stay pending appeal. The Fourth Circuit had recently decided that they would apply a tougher standard for granting a stay [than most other circuits], which exacerbated an existing circuit split on the issue.
We then filed an application for a stay with the Supreme Court. The Court stayed my client’s removal, treated the stay application as a cert petition, and granted cert on the procedural question.
My client is still in detention. He has already been taken to the airport once. He could have been deported by now if we had not gotten a stay.
ATL: Reviewing the transcript of oral argument, it seems that some of the justices, particularly Chief Justice Roberts, were quite aggressive in their questioning. Did you feel they were tough on you?
LCH: In the courtroom, it was amazingly friendly. The transcript may read differently. The argument felt very much like a conversation you would have with anyone about a complex legal issue.
At the end of the argument, Chief Justice Roberts thanked both sides for our work on the case. The Court had ordered a very expedited briefing schedule: cert was granted on November 25, and the argument was on January 21, so we were working over the holidays.
ATL: What was your favorite part of the argument?
LCH: Having Justice Scalia tell me that I was right. [See tr. at 10:9: “That’s true.”]
ATL: Any other fun tidbits?
LCH: I can think of two. First, even though it was my first argument, it was [opposing counsel] Edwin Kneedler’s 104th Supreme Court argument — but his first as acting Solicitor General.
Second, the name of the case has constantly changed. At the time it was granted, it was Nken v. Mukasey [Michael Mukasey, Attorney General at the time]. When it was argued, it was Nken v. Filip [Mark Filip, Acting Attorney General at the time]. By the time it gets decided, it will probably be Nken v. Holder [Eric Holder, President Obama’s nominee for Attorney General].
ATL: After the argument was over, what did you do?
LCH: Well, first my girlfriend and I went to get a drink. Then the firm hosted a champagne toast, which was really kind and generous. It just shows what a family atmosphere we have here.
Jenner’s a really unusual place. How many firms would say to the associate who gets cert granted in a pro bono case, “that’s your argument”? There was no partner who expressed any reservation about an associate doing the argument — even partners who have been waiting a long time for their first Supreme Court argument, who would have been totally justified in saying, “Hey, can I take this one?”
After the champagne toast, we went out for drinks to Zaytinya, where we saw [proprietor and celebrity chef] Jose Andres. I explained to him that I had just had my first Supreme Court argument, and I invited him over to join us for drinks. So he did. [See picture below.]
ATL: Do you have a sense of which way the case will go based on the argument?
LCH: No, I don’t. I feel like I did the best job I could — but I don’t have a sense of how it will go.
ATL: Thanks for taking the time to talk to us. Congratulations on the argument, and good luck!
Nken v. Mukasey [ScotusWiki / SCOTUSblog]
Nken v. Filip: Oral Argument Transcript (PDF) [Supreme Court]
Supreme Court hears criminal procedure and deportation cases [Jurist]
Miami nonprofit joins effort to make deportations harder [Palm Beach Post]
Jenner & Block Associate Prepares to Make Supreme Court Debut [Am Law Daily]
Lindsay Harrison and Jose Andres, at Zaytinya.
(180) Comments
Comments
Great story -- good for her.
firsty
2 = EPIC FAIL.
Comment removed by moderator.
Congratulations. That's awesome.
FINALLY- a good story.
Comment removed by moderator.
Awesome story.
Can anybody confirm the rumors of layoffs at Cahill?
Nice work Lat. Took the interview idea from the WSJ Law Blog and that's a great point.
People in my high school used to argue before the Supreme Court all the time, it was no big deal.
The depressing part about this to me is that she's a FIFTH year associate and has never done an oral argument before. You're right about starting out with trivial discovery motions and whatnot, but you should at least be doing that by your second or third year.
This is fascinating.
Do they serve ABORTED FETUS BURGERS at the Supreme Court cafeteria? If not, there's a whole new market to explore.
Now that's a recruiting brochure.
Comment removed by moderator.
12,
It looks like she clerked for two years before joining Jenner & Block. 3 years isn't that long to go without an oral argument, especially when you're in sn elite appelate practice.
16: What the hell is wrong with you? Be a human being.
16- spot the f$%# on.
Lat you may have saved this website from complete obscurity. Pretty damn cool. Even stepping foot in the supreme court was an awsome feeling, I could not imagin arguing there
#12: her bio says that she clerked for 3 years, so she really only has 2 years of actual practice (but probably much more procedural experience than the average partner). Still, I can't believe that J&B didn't trot her out for some lame MTC or MTD before her debut with the Supremes.
Looks like she clerked for 3 years, so she's a 5th year but only really a 2nd year at a firm.
"I was not about to wear a skirt, since they dispensed with that requirement and permitted women to wear pants a few years ago. If women don't take advantage of that opportunity, it sets a bad precedent."
Or may be it shows they don't like pantsuits.
Congrats!
Comment removed by moderator.
Comment removed by moderator.
23, or maybe they realize that while it is no longer a requirement you are arguing in front of at least 4 justices that would rather you wear the skirt. I understand making a statement and everything, but I would just prefer to do anything that will make Scalia less angry.
Just so we're clear--
Since her argument affects SCOTUS precedent for years to come, if she losses she will have negatively affected the rights of thousands of people??
And she has NO experience in oral argument?
So she basically had to choose between taking this juicy opportunity for her career risking the rights of others or passing the argument on to a more experienced advocate and she chose the FORMER?
And you people are praising her for it?
How. . .selfish.
Comment removed by moderator.
28, oral argument is important but not that important.
Comment removed by moderator.
Man, I sure wish this blog had more uplifting posts like this one.
Who cares about doing oral arguments. That's what stupid law students think is important in law firms. If you want to succeed though it's ten times more important as a litigator to understand discovery and MSJ's and all the other inane little rules you have to follow preparing answers or CMC statements or discovery motions or whatever. Seriously, I'd rather be an expert in all these basic litigation things than do fifty oral arguments or depositions for that matter. Life is not LAW AND ORDER
32 - It's only uplifting if she won.
So why does she and her firm want to keep Cameroon a non-democratic state? It seems to me that if we continue to remove democratic activists from troubled countries, those countries will NEVER improve.
It also says a lot about the plaintiff's lack of commitment and resolve.
Finally, what skills does this guy bring to the table? Do we actually need him here or will he be a public charge?
Comment removed by moderator.
Comment removed by moderator.
Comment removed by moderator.
Comment removed by moderator.
Comment removed by moderator.
Comment removed by moderator.
Comment removed by moderator.
28 - You've obviously never argued an appeal before.
Oral argument matters not one whit to determination of the central issues. The justices have read all the papers, understand all the issues, and have made up their minds by the time you step up. Basically the whole point of oral argument is for the judges to determine what to say and what not to say in dicta, by determining your position on some collateral consequence of tiny distinctions.
It's different in an intermediate appellate court, where you're normally just one in a laundry line of cases to be heard on a particular day and the judges barely can stay awake to listen to what you're saying (the first time I argued an appeal one of the judges asked me two quick questions, got the answers he expected, and then got up and walked away... to the bathroom, I later found out. I thought he was recusing himself). But when you're in a court of last resort (I haven't had the pleasure of arguing before SCOTUS, but I've been before the NY CoA before) they've chosen to hear your case because it obviously matters to them, and they're fully prepared and interested in your particular case. But they're not going to be making any substantive determinations about it on the basis of your oral argument.
I've twice seen a guy who is far and away, without a doubt the best oral arguer I've ever seen argue in the CoA. Both times, he lost.
Comment removed by moderator.
33 - 1st year litigation associate pissed at life because all s/he knows how to do is discovery.
43 - Then why do Supreme Court advocates get paid so much?
My understanding is that those advocates that consistently argue before the Court are a small, elite, and highly paid group?
You're saying they are scamming their clients?
Comment removed by moderator.
26: just as well. I don't think she'd be interested in you either.
I also concur with 30, though presumably the client was kept informed of the process and the decisionmaking that went in to it. I handled a circuit court habeas appeal (in a first degree murder case) pro bono and the client had concerns about me arguing as a sixth year. We overcame those concerns and I won the case....
28 - How can you make such an assessment without even reading the transcript? You're ridiculous.
46, they are good advertising for the law firms that hire them. They pay for the bragging rights. Appellate work itself is usually not lucrative to law firms.
48 - It's not just about the client. You're affecting rules that affect everyone. Or at least everyone in your clients' position.
But according to 43, that doesn't matter because oral argument is always a big charade for highly paid SC advocates to use as an opportunity to rip off their clients.
Comment removed by moderator.
Meanwhile, ex French Prez Chirac was bitten by his "clinically depressed" poodle which was on anti-depressants.
You can't make this stuff up!
"Clinically Depressed Poodle Mauls Former French President Chirac"
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,481426,00.html
47, I think there might be something wrong with you. Seems like you have a lot of anger.
46 = Law Student
That's not the point 43 made. And most great 'advocates' can brief circles around the average lawyer (which is basically most of the profession, even in biglaw). That is what garners the high salary. Not whether you sound professional in an oral argument. Try moot court this semester, you will understand.
Would one of the moderators please block the idiots like 31 from spamming this site.
Oral argument has little to no impact on decisions. It's funny how the individuals commenting here act as if one cannot argue in court unless they are a certain "year". It doesn't take a GED to argue what you have written. BigLaw Drones. Advocates do not sit in offices.
Comment removed by moderator.
57, I would like to gut you like a fish and hang you from the ceiling by your entrails.
Comment removed by moderator.
Here's a great ATL tip. Applicant sues Iowa law claiming she was discriminated against because she was conservative. She's probably right!!!
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20090123/NEWS/90123003/1001
Wow, great story.
Comment removed by moderator.
That is truly awesome. Congrats to her!
46 - Because there's a certain type of expertise that goes into such things. Not just the oral argument -- writing the briefs, lining up Amici, etc., etc. The first time I went before the CoA, I spent 100 hours preparing for oral argument, and it was certainly worth it -- I anticipated every question and knew every small detail and answer, and my opponent obviously hadn't, and didn't. But I could also tell exactly what their decision would be from the argument, and when I ended up getting the decision, I could see exactly why each particular question had been asked by looking at the things said and unsaid in the dicta. And some of the questions they asked, which I anticipated and had the answer for, ended up causing them to leave out bad dicta that could have hurt me in later cases.
You need a lot of experience, preparation, and skill to be an appellate advocate (or a good one, at least), but the actual oral argument is never what wins or loses the main issues.
Comment removed by moderator.
Comment removed by moderator.
59, 57 here. Get in line. And go get my coffee.
is this shit pro bono?
I am posting here at ATL and doing it PRO BONO too.
Wait Cahill is having layoffs?
Comment removed by moderator.
I am posting here at ATL and doing it PRO BONO too.
Comment removed by moderator.
I wish i could fully moot her
7 - i just laughed way too hard when I read that. . .I have to get the hell out of here.
Comment removed by moderator.
After reading all of the comments posted here, I find it hard to believe that many of you are educated adults. If you want to critique the transcript do that, but leave the personal BS out of it.
Impressive.
Lindsay is one of the smartest, nicest, and most hardworking people I know. She totally deserves this. Yay for her!
Comment removed by moderator.
Comment removed by moderator.
Guys at my high school used to argue their first case before the nine justices of the supreme court all the time. It was no big deal.
Comment removed by moderator.
80 = Anti-Tulane Law School 3L.
Fulbright just announced a salary freeze. Why isn't there a post on this yet?
80, arguing before SCOTUS or getting reemed on the ATL comments?
Comment removed by moderator.
84, I'm not doing all of the asslobster posts and I'm not #47. I'm just wondering why do you want everyone to go to that site? do you run it or something and are trying to drum up hits?
Comment removed by moderator.
Comment removed by moderator.
90, that is just a repost of 84 and doesn't answer any questions at all. Why do you want everyone to go to that site?
mayne, you little kids out there just dont understain...
b.g. said THAT shit in 99
bling bling
Comment removed by moderator.
I agree with 43, but it's still awesome that she did this, and pretty cool that a partner didn't take the argument from her once it got up there.
Congrats to her, but how much must it suck to have been a lawyer for five years before getting to do an oral argument?
All you fuckers are mean. Ragging on Mystal is one thing - he's a good chap about it but damn a somewhat innocous interview and you folks are like Nazis on Kristallnacht just ripping on everything in site.
There's a special place in hell for those of you who are making personal comments. This site really needs moderation
Comment removed by moderator.
97 = racist
Bravo to her (and to ATL for a good story).
See tr. at 12:2 - She forgot to mention that Scalia called her explanation a "fluke" and a "flukey situation". Dollars to donuts, Scalia does not rule in her client's favor.
Censorship is the hobby-horse of devils.
Censorship happens when there is state action. If a private website declines to host offensive comments, that is not "censorship."
If a homeowner paints over racist graffiti on the wall of his house, that is not censorship.
Lindsay: Good for you. You are most definitely much smarter than me. However, I most definitely enjoy a better quality of life than you.
Not trying to be mean, just creating some perspective. Thank you for working through the holidays. xoxoxox
Lindsay is awesome!
Genocide happens when there is state action. Any fora for speech may be censored.
ATL is a privately owned website. If you don't like it (or its comment moderation), then don't read it.
The power of ownership is not a foreign concept; the vermin aspect of ownership is what is new.
Yes, congratulations to her. Although the fact that she'd already turned 30 when she first got in front of SCOTUS must be a little dissappointing to her, she could just be a late bloomer
Too many censored comments. This is not the United States of China - at least not yet.
congrats to her, great story.
and it's nice the comments haven't degraded to the xoxo dreck
Co-sign 108. This is not a public forum under the First Amendment.
Thank god for active moderators. This associate is awesome and we should be able to read about her story without subjecting her to public humiliation by the baboons who troll this site.
"Comment removed by moderator."
THANK YOU, LAT.
Seriously, it's about time, but better late than never.
Good for her!!!! This associate has a lot of guts. And I wish her and her client the best of luck.
But what's with all the comments that had to be removed?
Ugh, just what this country needs. Being named Jean Marc should be enough for deportation. I've reached my limit on African community organizers this year.
110, true this is a private forum. However, you are obviously a red commie pinko turd burglar. How do those turds taste?
118, what's your problem with pinko commies?
Wow -- good for her. (But correction to the story: believe that she is a sixth year, not fifth year? She's class of 2003, so she would be a sixth year as of 1/1/2009.)
119, I do not have one; I do not have a problem with turd burglars either ... I voted for Obama.
118
I remember very well my first oral argument soon after being admitted, a motion to continue a court trial that I had worked hard on and received complements from the partner in charge on my “very complete and excellent” work product and scholarship.
Since the court was closer to my parents house—who were out-of-town—I decided to spend the night there, but got embroiled in some late night partying.
Next morning, groggy, running late, I opened the garment bag to learn to my horror that my suit pants were missing.
Ironing then donning my balled up tan slacks from the night before and throwing on a blue blazer ripped off from my dad’s closet and noting in the mirror that (except for being totally hung over) I looked passably professional, I dashed to court, barely taking a seat in the courtroom before the judge took the bench.
Mine was the first case called. Opening my mouth to begin my learned oratory and before I could utter a single word—the judge forcefully pronounced “I have got to tell you right now counsel, motion denied.”
Before I could even say “but”, he had called the next case, and I found myself shuffling in disbelief out the door.
Arguable not my finest hour; Notably, not my worst either.
Dear 61: The lady in question (who sued for job discrimination) might have a better case if she was not on the law school faculty before during and after being turned down for the promotion.
Jenner's policy is to only count 100 hours of your pro bono toward the 2000 hour billable requirement, so by doing 800 hrs of pro bono on this case, this associate just raised her billable requirement to 2700.
124 - Thanks for the info.
But for an experience like this, which stays with you for the rest of your life, wouldn't you give up a bonus? Especially given what bonuses are like these days....
Great story. Reminds me of the old days when it was Lat writing quality pieces.
the comment moderation is long overdue. I hope you've gone as far as banning the asslobster and juicy insides posters.
Warning to everyone: Commenters posting rude comments on this story are getting their IP addresses banned from ATL commenting.
(But some of us can just move to different computers, Lat. Nice try.)
Thanks for the great story, I think you should do things like this more often. Congrats to Lindsay, did she buy one of those courtroom paintings of herself arguing?? And what a great PR moment for Jenner.
Can it be a comment clusterfuck if half the comments were removed by the moderator?
Wow, great job, 127. I don't know where this world would be if there weren't everyday heroes out there, ordinary men and women obscure in their labor, but fighting, always fighting, for rudeness. Good for you.
I agree with 78. I wonder how many of you "wanna be" lawyers will ever have the privilege to argue before the Supreme Court. Our court system needs more lawyers like this young woman. 30 years old and look at her accomplishments already! Congratulations Lindsay and Jenner.
1) this is an AWESOME story, and says great things about her, and her FIRM.
2) I think and hope, she'll get some pull out of this- clients calling them up for more work, and the like.
3) As a seasoned (ahem- old) lawyer, I agree that in the SCT the oral argument matters less, and today it's more like the justices showing off than an argument in any other court. That's not saying though, that it's wasteful to prepare for arguing in that court- it never hurts you to do a good job.
Argument has an inverse relation to the prestige of the court; the SCT is extremely prepared and well-versed in your case, while as you go down the ladder, there are more cases, less time, and worse lawyers/duller cases, gumming up the works.
So one reason I've always loved going to the trial courts on rule day, is to watch the local lawyers and see who's good and who's bad. I often see lawyers from good firms who seemingly don't train their people well. Much of the time, lawyers have a lot of information, but no judgment about what is most important. When you have a judge with 75 cases on the docket, you may have 30 seconds before he/she stops paying attention. I'm always blown away by people who drone on telling the judge irrelevant procedural history, or going on and on about "the standards for summary judgment" like the judge might not have read about that before.
Anyway, I'll close out by saying GOOD FOR LINDSAY HARRISON. Knock em out flat on your next argument, kid.
Ex-college debaters are getting great press. Mike Gottlieb joins the Obama administration, Lindsay Harrison is arguing before the Supreme Court, Neal Katyal becomes deputy solicitor general... good times.
Thanks, David, for a great story and reminding me why I come here. I was at a football playoff party the other day and my sisters new neighbor turned out to be an associate at Pillsbury. Very nice fellow. After a couple of moments of general law b.s., we started talking about how much we used to like ATL under your management and how much it now usually sucks.
Reading this story followed by a SEA of "deleted" comments I can only say . . . about f'ing time. Well done Elie, David, whoever pulled the trigger. I read this story, loved it, and then thought, holy crap, what are people going to be saying in the comments.
You need to do this more often.
How bad does a comment have to be before it gets yanked by the moderator on this site? Personally, I prefer my speech free even if it means I have to wade through 83 comments about lobster to read something funny.
136 - It's like pornography. They know it when they see it.
Moderating comments is an art, not a science. I am sure you can find examples of inconsistent "rulings."
But ATL isn't a court of law. It is a privately owned website. Lat and Mystal can be arbitrary and capricious in comment moderation, and that's not subject to review.
re - youngest people to argue a case before SCOTUS
Michael Tigar (Berkeley undergrad/Boalt) was also younger for his first argument. I think about 28.
I saw the comments before they were "removed by moderator." I'm glad Lat took them down. Lindsay's stunning achievement shouldn't be littered with some of the garbage that reaches this website.
Three cheers for moderation! Keep up the good work.
Congratulations! Inspiring...and definitely excellent news amidst all the gloom and doom. EXCELLENT JOB, Lindsay!
Andres in that picture:
"Heyyyy...ya just argued in front of The Nine Wise...fuhgeddabouit."
137 is right. Also, there is a check on excessive moderation: the market. If ATL cracks down too heavily, then it will lose readers to other sites.
Cool story (and congrats to Lindsay!)
And thanks for the moderation. About time.
Ditto- a wonderful story and thanks for the moderation.
/Lady Lawyer appalled by disgusting turn this site has taken.
Can someone give a brief synopsis on all the posts that were removed?
I was halfway through this post when I was surprised to find that I was enjoying it. So I scrolled back to the top and, sure enough, it wasn't an Elie. Well done, Lat.
WTF with the deleted posts? How long has this been going on? What was said?
They were inappropriate comments about personal appearance and comments reflecting prejudice based on gender and sexual orientation.
Great work, Lindsay! Judging from the transcript, you more than held your own.
The deleted comments were rightly removed -- they added absolutely nothing intelligent or relevant to the conversation. Rather the commentators felt it their duty to point out that this brilliant and talented young attorney doesn't happen to also look like a Scarlett Johansson or some other gorgeous movie star, since apparently, in their opinion, that is a pre-requisite to be a successful female attorney.
I think it's a great story about an incredible young attorney, and I am glad that the jealous childish nonsense was removed from the comments.
it just amazes me how we have gone from what this site should be talking about ( relevant cases that will have a significant impact on law, to childish nonsense that reflects hatred and prejudice. Thank you to the moderators for reminding us of what we should be addressing and congratulations to this incredible young attorney who has accomplished more than most of us who read this site. Keep up the good work Lindsay!
This is so cool; not only did she get this amazing experience, she got a photo with one of my favorite chefs! Wow!
I think every person commenting here is very, very impressed with you, Lindsay. The negative remarks are motivated by plain, old-fashioned jealousy. You've done an awesome thing and I'm very happy for you!
5th year associate, first oral argument...
BWAHAHA HAHAHAHAHA AH HAHAHAHA!!!!!!!
I just realized why this profession is going straight to hell....$400/hr. no court experience, gotta love it.
When are we going to $190k a year for 1st years??????
Scanned the transcript; she did a great job.
153, why don't you give us your suggestions for improving the legal system.
Also, why don't you look at the transcript and see if you can identify flaws in her work that experience would have improved?
Having clerked before, I can assure you that oral arguments rarely -- and probably almost never -- impact the actual outcome of the case.
156 here -- and I was saying that not as a knock on her, but more of a response to the toolbag above who said it is ridiculous that they'd let someone with no experience do such a thing. Congrats to this girl, for sure!
I think it's awesome that she got the opportunity to argue before the Supreme Court, but do you know how fucking lame that is that it took her 5-years to run her own oral argument. This is why people who actually practice law look down on (large) private firm associates. There's no reason in God's green earth to have that kind of timetable to actual practice. (It's also suggestive of why firms are struggling financially: their antiquated practices once they hire you go hand in hand with their antiquated hiring practices.)
5 ... years.
143 - you're right. And I hope a lot of people here get lost. This place didn't used to suck. Now it sucks. Here's to it not sucking anymore!
Comment removed by moderator.
Why are people ragging on big firms and thinking it's crazy to wait this long to argue in front of SCOTUS? Um, hello -- it's rare for any lawyer, particularly one without gray hair.
My first oral argument was before the 8th Circuit and I was still a law student. No big deal.
Dear ATL,
Thank you for removing stupid, sexist, idiotic comments (undoubtedly posted by law students at "T14" schools).
And thank you for posting an interesting story about something other than associate bonuses or pay freezes.
Congrats to Lindsay.
156 -- that is probably the most ignorant comment I have read on this site yet, especially considering the level of court you're speaking about.
That tells us that either (1) you never clerked for a judge; (2) if you did, it was for some bogus judge assigning traffic court supervision, or (3) you and your judge were totally incompetent morons who never truly understood the underlying issues and never considered arguments not raised in the briefs, which is precisely the reason why you were probably reversed on most of your decisions. If you clerked for an appellate judge, God help us all.
164,
I'm not 156, but I clerked for a 5th Circuit judge and can say that I never saw oral argument change my judge's mind about the result, or so far as I know any other judge on the panels he served on. The briefs contained the real meat of the arguments. Oral argument could sometimes shade the reasoning a little, as when sometimes you get to oral argument and it's just clear that one side doesn't have a case after you hear them talk.
Oral argument could still be helpful, however. The courts are busy and hearing a lawyer explain the case was nice- when they were prepared.
This by the way, is in line with what I've heard judges say through the years. Do you disagree?
I hate that this is turning into a comment string about stuff other than the awesomeness of this experience, but i totally agree with 165. I work in the 7th Cir and have heard one 7th Cir. judge say that an oral argument has changed his opinion perhaps 1-2 times during the entire time he's been on the appellate bench. I clerked for a district court judge (go on, talk about how lame and TIII I must be for this) and we never really had oral arguments for motions or anything for that same reason -- your brief should be what makes or breaks the decision.
I agree. We should thank the moderators for deleting the unnecessary comments; what she was able to accomplish was truly amazing. Even if she doesn't like the penis.
I know Lindsay and she hasn't even been working at a firm for two years - she clerked for three years. So it's not that crazy that she hasn't had an appellate argument yet. And she does have trial experience - she definitely did some direct and cross in a trial last year. So it's pretty damn cool to get your first appellate argument in the Supreme Court after less than 2 years at a firm.
168,
bingo: her firm bio says district clerkship 2003-05, and appellate clerkship "in 2006" (unclear if she left in 2007, or late 2006, but probably 07 since the bio says she taught a "year-long" course at Miami). She's a "fifth-year associate" for pay scale purposes but has actually worked there less than 2 years. She is also, already, chair of some local bar committee.
I laugh at some "litigators" from big firms, but not her. She is quite clearly going places. I'd go to court with this lawyer ANY day.
Ms. Harrison obtained her B.A. in Political Science, Gender Studies, and Cinema-Television from the University of Southern California, graduating summa cum laude and with Honors. She obtained her J.D. from Harvard Law School, where she graduated cum laude and served as Executive Articles Editor of the Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review, Executive Technical Editor of the Harvard Women’s Law Journal, and as Co-President of Harvard Lambda. From 2003-2005, she clerked for the Honorable Alan S. Gold on the Southern District of Florida, and in 2006, she clerked for the Honorable Rosemary Barkett on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. While clerking, Ms. Harrison taught a year-long course on Legal Research and Writing and a seminar on Civil Rights Litigation Strategy at the University of Miami Law School, where she was a Law Lecturer and Visiting Scholar.
I wish I had her exoerience by the time I was 30. Anyone who says anything negative is just jealous of how much she has accomplished. We need more lawyers like Ms. Harrison.
Way to go, Lindsay! And thank you for some comment moderation at long last -- was about to stop visiting ATL because of all the lobster and jucy-ass-whatever comments. A modicum of civility is welcome at long last.
You all are a bunch of #*(&$#*# idiots.
Ok, it's plainly obvious that the same cheerleader has dedicated his/her entire weekend to defend the honor of Lindsay. Take a break already.
The point is not that she's preoccupied herself for several years before joining a private firm. That's admirable but misses the point. She is compensated as a 5th year associate at a large firm with only 2 practical years of experience. Hence, all the comments about overpaid, underexperienced 5th year associates. Ironically, this line of reasoning is probably too much for a 5th year (really, 2d year associate) to fathom, so the point stands...not enough experience at oral argument. Sorry, you lose here. Who says oral argument is a waste?!
Her outfit is horrendous. She needs to find a tailor.
154, I have to disagree with you. I don't think that you can say that she did a "great job" just from the transcript. I'd be interested to hear the audio. It seems like she was adequate with a few justices not at all convinced. She deflected some tough questions but wasn't proactive in cutting off avenues of attack early on. She was mostly reactive where as a seasoned oralist in her position would have taken several opportunities to be proactive and cut off potential lines of attack before they developed. There seem to be a few point where the questioning was leading her around by the nose. I'm not saying that she was sub-par. It looks like she performed adequately but I don't think that you can say she did a "great job".
Justice Scalia says in his book on oral argument that Supreme Court oral argument is tremendously important. And I think it's fair to say that Scalia's view is widely shared among former Supreme Court clerks. Sure, it is very rare that it determines who wins and who loses; but oral argument is very important to the shape and scope of the opinion.
She wore THAT to argue in front of the Supreme Court? How tragic.
Our profession truly is the profession of dorks.
And how many SCOTUS arguments have you had, 175?
175,
if only YOU had done that argument, you could've bamboozled the justices into voting your way despite their firmly held opinion.
I mean, it couldn't possibly be that they took this case to resolve a split in circuit practice and slap down the 9th Circuit yet again.
*rolls eyes*
I think Lindsay's black pantsuit looks sharp. And I like her shades, too!