My first oral experience - just happened yesterday!

Oral argument that is. An oral argument is a presentation to a judge, who gets to ask you very hard questions regarding your position. At an appellate oral argument, you argue to three judges - all of whom are exceptional legal thinkers, and all of whom get to hit you with questions. I had my first real oral argument, it was in front ofthe appellate division (crazy as that sounds for a first argument), my appearance was objected to, the judges let me argue anyway, and I proceeded to kick ass.

And just to toot my own horn - it is highly unusual for an attorney that has been practicing less than six months to argue at that level. In fact, there is probably a good number of attorneys who have never argued in front of the appellate division.

Basically, I argued along side Don (the partner on the case). The case involved a coupon settlement of a class action, and we represented an objector who successfully argued that the settlement was flawed until it was modified to include a money refund redeemable by claim form. Don argued that trial judges should have the authority to aportion a lead plaintiff's incentive stipend to provide a stipend for the objector, and I argued that a successful objector is entitled toattorney's fees under the Consumer Fraud Act. Don's issue, whatever the decision, will set a nationwide precedent. My issue was one on which no New Jersey court has ruled (although federal courts have awarded objectors fees pursuant to other fee shifting statutes).

Before the substantive argument began, defence counsel argued thatI should not be allowed to participate because I had no prior involvement in the case and it was unclear what my qualificiations were. Don vouched for my competence and told the Court that even though I'm relatively new attorney, I had spent a year clerking in Atlantic County. Ultimately, the Court allowed me to argue on the basis that I was an admitted attorney associated with the firm of record.

I wasn't too nervous at first, but once Don started arguing (his issue was first), I started to wig out: it was as if the clock had begun to tick backwards, as my time to argue was minuites away. I calmed myself down, focusing on the arguments, and then the judges told Don they wanted to hear about the fee issue.

The pressure was on. The Judges asked me tough questions- - - - and I had responsive answers. Towards the end, it became almost conversational, and I made the key points I needed to make. Adding to the pressure was the fact that the other partner of the firm came to watch me argue, and I'm glad he did.

This all seems like a brag fest - but in the end, its just because that was the best time I've had being a lawyer yet. With everything else I've done so far - by large legal research and writing - I've had some element of a safety net. With this, it was real time. I went one on three with the judges, on an issue of consequence. And the best part is, I had fun with it and realized I'm pretty lucky because I love to argue and I get paid to do it.

but enough of that . . . back to the grind . . .