tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6502671597155347921.post2717875641363919249..comments2020-10-01T00:09:43.066-07:00Comments on Len Niehoff's Random Verdicts: Who is the Audience?Len Niehoffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15207624477330919554noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6502671597155347921.post-10563756158888662552012-05-09T11:14:47.586-07:002012-05-09T11:14:47.586-07:00This is a good question, Andrew. I have two thoug...This is a good question, Andrew. I have two thoughts. First, I think that lawyers should be careful not to assume that they have the same rhetorical license that the judges before whom they appear do. They don't. Second, I agree that sometimes a rhetorical flourish may help a judge understand why a particular ruling would have or lack merit or assists the judge in expressing (or "selling") their conclusions. But I believe it is critical to stay focused on the primary task at hand: to help the judge do his or her job ... not to dazzle them with your unbridled brilliance. I think this is why law school oral advocacy competitions often sound like debates while the arguments of highly experienced advocates often sound like conversations.Len Niehoffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15207624477330919554noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6502671597155347921.post-4305334415592357952012-05-09T11:00:36.351-07:002012-05-09T11:00:36.351-07:00Does this remain true when arguing to Justice Scal...Does this remain true when arguing to Justice Scalia while he is repeating language from conservative talk radio, or perhaps more importantly, Justice Kennedy, prone to rhetorical flashes of his own? The Justices seem quite aware of the effect of one-liners in selling their decisions - is it not reasonable to think maybe they are also swayed by them?Andrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17986536672148560528noreply@blogger.com