Students see the gamut of lawyering styles during the day’s nine arguments
Room 3 of the law school was transformed into a courtroom for the 2nd District Court of Appeal, Division 2, which heard nine cases on March 22. The mid-morning and afternoon sessions were filled with students who heard attorneys argue a variety of cases during the court’s first visit to USC Law.
Professor Jean Rosenbluth, who with Dean Matthew L. Spitzer coordinated the court’s visit, said she was pleased that first-year students got to see a wide range of abilities and styles from the attorneys present.
“I thought it was a great success, both in terms of being a learning experience for the students, and also how well it went off: There were a lot of people and a lot of logistics involved, and it went smoothly,” said Rosenbluth, adding that she appreciated the attorneys making the trip to the law school.
During the court’s afternoon session, first-year student Patricia Eberwine watched lawyers present arguments in three cases: one involving a carjacking, one involving age and gender discrimination, and a discovery dispute in a case that involved a restaurant’s investors.
“It was cool that we got to see a variety of cases,” Eberwine said.
Presiding Justice Roger W. Boren and Associate Justices Kathryn Doi Todd, Judith M. Ashmann-Gerst and Victoria M. Chavez rotated their seats throughout the day, to have three on the dais for each case. They sat quietly during some arguments, while interrupting with frequent questions during others.
First-year student Lindsay Tabaian was interested in the various ways lawyers handled their cases, and the different types of presentation skills — some effective, some less so. She also paid attention to the questions asked by the judges.
“You can only prepare so much of what you know,” she said. “You never know what they’re going to ask you.”
Tabaian was one of about 40 students who joined the judges for lunch. Dining at a table with Ashmann-Gerst, Tabaian said she picked up some tips on case preparation and heard more about how the judges themselves prepare to hear oral arguments.
She and Eberwine both said they found Bacon v. Renard, the restaurant investor case, particularly interesting. The case was thrown out of a lower court because one of the parties refused to give a deposition.
“Some of the Court of Appeal judges seemed to think that was too heavy a sanction,” Rosenbluth said.
Many of the cases likely will be decided in the coming weeks, and Rosenbluth plans to distribute the judgments to the students. The timing of the court’s visit may help first-year students as they prepare to present their own oral arguments in Moot Court, she said.
USC Law hopes to make the Court of Appeal visit an annual event and is coordinating with the justices from Division 8, two of whom are USC Law alumni and have already expressed an interest in coming to the law school.
Previous Article
