ISSUES ON APPEAL PODCAST TRANSCRIPT
Episode 4:  At the High Court
Welcome to the Issues on Appeal Podcast. I'm your host, Duane Daiker. This is 
Episode 4: At the High Court.
Duane: Thanks for joining me. As you know, this is a podcast that focuses on 
appellate issues and appellate practice in Florida, in both the State and 
Federal courts. And normally we do that through interviews with other 
lawyers, but this week is going to be a little bit different. 
We've had a lot of requests to talk about my recent visit to the U.S. Supreme 
Court. My case was heard at oral argument last month, and I thought many of 
you would find it interesting. Now, I didn't have the opportunity to argue the 
case, but it did just about everything else. It was truly awesome. 
Now, I'm not an expert in this by any means. This is my first time through the 
entire process, including briefing on the merits and oral argument. I'm just 
sharing my experience as a first timer at the court and through this process, 
but through the lens of an experienced appellate lawyer and somebody who is 
just fascinated with the whole process. But I didn't want a drone on about it, 
so I recruited a local appellate lawyer, friend and podcast enthusiast, Jared 
Krukar. 
Jared is with DPW Legal here in Tampa and is a Board Certified Appellate 
Specialist. Jared's interview with me, sorry, of me is coming up next.
Jared, thanks for joining me on the podcast. 
Jared: Thank you. I'm glad to be here. 
Duane: So, you're an appellate lawyer here in Tampa and a big appellate geek 
like a lot of us with a lot of interest in the high court. So, I wanted to have you 
here today. 
Before we get started, will you tell me a little bit about your appellate 
practice?
Jared: I'm with DPW Legal in Tampa Bay. We practice appellate law and 
intellectual property and I handle most of the appeals there; kind of all any 
3sort of civil appeals you can think of; we have probably seen it.
Duane: And I should mention that you are fairly newly certified by the Florida 
Bar as an Appellate Specialist, I think, just this past year you obtained your 
certification. So, congratulations. 
Jared: Thank you very much. I appreciate that. Last year. 
Duane: So, this is kind of a special episode of the podcast. I say special 
because I think that I will do a little bit more of the talking on this episode 
than I normally do. But I needed someone to be a guest host, so I brought you 
in as someone who would have some interest in this to give me somebody to 
talk to about this subject.
Jared: I'm excited. I'm excited to commandeer the Issues on Appeal Podcast 
for just 45 minutes or so. So, let's go.
Duane: There you go. So, what do you want to know, Jared?
Jared: What do I want to know? Well, first, I think we need to introduce you if 
you are a guest speaker today. So, Duane, can you tell us a little bit about your 
practice?
Duane: Sure. I am a Board Certified Appellate Specialist II. I am the head of 
the appellate department at Shumaker, Loop & Kendrick here in Tampa.
I am sort of a generalist as it comes to a handling appeals. Like a lot of us, we 
take whatever comes in the door that sounds like an appeal or feels like an 
appeal. Obviously, because of the law firm, most of my practice is civil and 
generally commercial appellate practice, but I do some personal injury 
appeals and just a lot of administrative law appeals; anything that comes my 
way that sounds like an appellate court, I'm in.
Jared: Yeah, I think a lot of us are similar that way, much like your previous 
guests, in that it's exciting to be a procedural specialist where we can 
specialize in appeals of all sorts, rather than a substantive area of law. So, 
that's one of the great things about our practice.
Duane: It definitely is. It gets us to do a lot of different things. It's a lot about 
the mindset of the appellate process and differentiating that from being a trial 
lawyer and understanding, the processes and the persuasion and the 
communication. I guess our advocacy is the same in some respects, but 
appellate advocacy, it all shares some common skills and common thought 
processes that are very interesting to me.
Jared: Absolutely. Absolutely. So, what brings me here today to interview you 
is that you recently had a trip to a court that we don't all get to practice in very 
often.
Duane: Yeah. My first trip to the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, D.C.
Jared: Okay. So, tell us, I mean, not about the facts of the case, of course, but 
what brought you there? What kind of case did you have that brought you all 
the way to the U.S. Supreme Court?
Duane: Well, I had a Federal case that was dismissed at the district court level 
on a statute of limitations basis under a Federal Law; under a particular 
Federal Statute, which was great, but the plaintiff appealed that case to the 
11th Circuit and ultimately the 11th Circuit, reversed the dismissal, sent the 
case back. 
But in doing so, the 11th Circuit recognize that there was a three-way circuit 
split between other Federal Circuits as to how that portion of that statute 
should be interpreted. So, they sort of opened the door for review at the U.S. 
Supreme Court.
Jared: Were you the party that ended up seeking the petition for cert to get to 
the U.S. Supreme Court?
Duane: Yeah, my client was one of two codefendants in the case. So, we both 
are co-petitioners to the U.S. Supreme Court. So, we filed a petition for writ of 
certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court, asking them to review the case and 
that process to resolve this conflict that existed among the other Federal 
Circuits. Which there's very limited ways that you get to the U.S. Supreme 
Court, and that's one of the most common is when you can demonstrate, and 
in this case, the Federal Appellate Court recognized that there was definitely a 
split amongst the courts and how they how they are reading that statute.
Jared: So you're obviously involved in the appeal on the 11th Circuit. When 
did you get involved with the case? I believe you were involved in the trial 
level?
Duane: I was. I was a primary counsel for my client at the trial level. 
Interestingly, at the trial level, I was sort of the lead in the case. The other 
codefendant sort of tagged along. I filed a motion to dismiss on the statute of 
limitations grounds and argued it to the district court and got the dismissal.
After that point, some things had changed with my client and the co-
defendants became much more interested in the case. They had a law firm, an 
out of state law firm that represented them in the 11th Circuit.
They did more of the work in the 11th Circuit. I was involved, obviously, I like 
to practice in other circuits, so I had felt like I had a lot to offer there. I went to 
the oral argument, but did not do the oral argument at the 11th Circuit.
Jared: Were you involved in the Supreme Court in filing the petition or did 
one of the other parties take the lead on that?
Duane: So, the attorneys were involved for our codefendant at the 11th 
Circuit. They were replaced by another firm that has a very strong Supreme 
Court practice and is based out of Washington, D.C. 
You know, Jared, this is a pretty specialized area. There's not a lot of lawyers 
in the country that claim a specialty in doing U.S. Supreme Court 
representation. 
And frankly, it's not inexpensive to hire one of those firms. My client is was a 
smaller business. The codefendant was a very large international company 
and they thought it was important enough and they were willing to spend the 
money to hire a Supreme Court firm. 
So, they, I would say, took the lead in the briefing, although certainly I had a 
lot of input. They were very good about working together in that process. So, I 
was definitely involved in the briefing process and I was happy to have that 
involvement.
Jared: Okay. So, just so our listeners know, some of them may not the practice 
in the U.S. Supreme Court before, there is a pretty significant process, 
including that petition to get jurisdiction in the U.S. Supreme Court. That 
includes a response as well, potentially. Can you tell us a little bit about that? 
How did that apply in this case?
Duane: Sure. So, the first step is the petitioner who's seeking review files a 
petition for a writ of cert with the court. And I've been in that position before 
where I have had other parties that I was opposed to file petitions. And when 
you respond in that situation, a lot of times, you don't even file a response; you 
waive your right to file a response. Because the fact is the Supreme Court gets 
so many of these and they hear so few of them, that the chances of getting 
your cert granted are pretty remote to start with. 
And so, usually the effort that's even spent on responding to a petition for a 
writ of cert is not worth it. The latest stat I saw on the court site was that the 
court accepts about 100 to 150 petitions each year, but receives more than 
7000. So, that would tell you that the statistics are not in your favor. 
But the good news is, and the reason why we generally feel comfortable 
waiving a response, is if it's something the court is really interested in, before 
they decide to grant cert, they will ask the respondent for a brief. So, there's 
really no danger. 
So, I've been in that situation before. I've been the recipient of a petition and 
I've always filed a waiver and it's never gone any farther than that. 
But what happens at that point is theÉ there's something called a Cert Pool 
where the judges get together or their clerks and they review the petitions 
that come in. And four of the nine justices have to vote in favor of hearing your 
petition for it to move on. 
So, what happens is there's a conference date and they get together and they 
take that vote. This is one thing I didn't understand about the process is 
usually any case, before the court accepts jurisdiction and decides to hear the 
cert petition, they will they will discuss at a conference more than once. 
So, what happened in our case is we had a conference date and then it got 
reset for a second conference; and that is a very good sign. A lot of cases are 
over after the conference date; you'll get a notification that they've declined 
jurisdiction. But we got the notice it said that it had been reset for a second 
conference. So, while that's no guarantee that they're going to take it, that's a 
really good sign. And ultimately, we did get notice from the court that they had 
accepted jurisdiction of the case.
Jared: So, that's interesting. That's a lot different than what we typically 
perceive in most Florida appeals and Florida discretionary review is you don't 
know what's happening with the court while they're considering whether or 
not they want to take your case. You just kind of sit there in and wait.
Duane: Yeah. And one of the ways you can keep track, I mean, obviously you 
can keep track through the Supreme Court's website and their docket, but 
there's a service out there that's a SCOTUS blog. Which is at scotusblog.com, I 
think. 
Jared: So, that's S-C-O-T-U-S-blog? 
Duane: Right. Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS blog) and they 
keep track of these things and they will tell you what cases are being heard at 
conference where cases have been relisted. They have sort of a realist watch 
because everybody is more interested in the cases that have been relisted. So, 
it's a great way to keep up with what's going on with your case, ironically. 
Jared: So, the SCOTUS blog is just a couple of private attorneys (Well, I don't 
know if weÕre many) but it's just private attorneys who happen to have a 
significant interest in this and they will watch the dockets themselves and 
post that.
Duane: Right. A lot of whom are local and usually some representative of the 
blog is at oral arguments each day or when opinions are being read. And so, 
any morning that the court is going to be announcing opinions, there's a live 
blog on SCOTUS of, you know, you hear it there first when a case is decided, 
which is pretty neat.
Jared: Interesting. Interesting. So, another thing that's somewhat unique 
about the Supreme Court practice is that it's not always just the parties that 
are in it from the appeal that end up getting involved. The Solicitor General 
sometimes gets involved. Did the Solicitor General get involved here?
Duane: They did. We got some communication from them early in the case 
and had a telephone conference with a representative of the SGÕs office where 
we tried to persuade them to take our side, unsuccessfully. 
Ultimately, the government decided to support the respondent in the case. 
And so, they did file an amicus brief from behalf of the government. 
And actually, I'm getting a little bit ahead of myself, but they actually took 
some time at oral argument too. The Solicitor General can ask the court to take 
a part of the oral argument time for the party they support for themselves. 
And so, they did do that. So, the Solicitor General actually had 10 minutes at 
the oral argument.
Jared: Does the party have any say in that?
Duane: You know, I think technically, you could probably oppose it, but I 
don't think anybody does, because they think the court's going to change their 
mind. If the government wants to be heard, I think the court's going to hear.
Jared: Right. So, you are watching the conference lists, youÕre seeing what's 
going on in the Supreme Court, then what? What's the notice you get?
Duane: Well, you get briefing notices that establishes a schedule for the 
briefing. It's a lot, like we know in any other court, both parties file a principal 
brief and there's a reply brief. It's really not much different than anywhere 
else. There's a lot of formatting requirements for the Supreme Court briefs. 
Luckily, working with a firm that does this all the time, I didn't have to focus 
on that a whole lot. 
But there are a special printing requirements and colors and sizes. The court 
is still a little bit antiquated in that way. Every brief has a different color and 
you end up with a rainbow file full of briefs. There's a whole industry for 
printing Supreme Court briefs. It's pretty amazing. It's a little cottage industry 
of helping you to get your briefs filed.
Jared: So, like specialist law firms, you probably have specialist printers 
sitting up in D.C. ready to take on your task.
Duane: Oh, yeah. Absolutely do. Absolutely. Another thing, you might find this 
interesting; it surprised me. Very different from State Court practice is our 
reply brief was only due two weeks before oral argument. So, it was a very 
tight schedule. 
You're trying to prep for oral argument and you're still finishing up your reply 
brief and the court doesn't have a lot of time to look at it. I don't know if it 
always works out that way or if it's just the way our case got scheduled. But I 
was surprised that the briefing schedule was so extended that it was knocking 
up against the oral argument date.
Jared: Yeah, it sounds like there might be actually a pretty good positive to 
that and that you are already preparing for the oral argument while you're 
briefing as opposed to what you and I typically do here is the case sits for 
three, four, five months, you keep your eyes open for new cases that come out. 
But other than that, you almost, not from scratch, but you have to start 
preparing, from the beginning, just a few weeks beforehand.
Duane: Right. You really have to refresh your memory. And here, that's really 
not the case. It's you're working right through.
Jared: You get a notice that you're set for oral argument. What is the 
preparation for oral argument? You're still writing your reply brief, I suppose, 
while you're starting to prepare. 
Duane: One of the things that we did was some moot court sessions, where 
we would get together and the attorney who is arguing the case would argue 
to a panel of other lawyers for input on arguments and questions and that sort 
of thing.
Now, I did not participate. I only participated in the last one of those. I know 
that they did some internally, but they invited me to the moot court that was 
done just a couple days. I traveled up to Washington, D.C., a couple days early 
for the oral argument and we had a moot court session where we spent a 
couple hours, just going through the case. 
Even at that point, we were still refining arguments and theories and 
responses to questions. And it was a wonderful experience. There was a 
roomful of very experienced Supreme Court litigators and appellate lawyers, 
and I like that almost as much as the oral argument day. It was just a blast to 
talk through all these things with people who had been there and I loved it. 
And I'll tell you, one of the things that amazed me was there was not a single 
question that came up at oral argument in front of the Supreme Court that 
hadn't already been discussed in the moot court session. So, that tells you 
successful moot court.
Jared: Everybody knew what to expect. You were ready for it. 
Duane: Right. No surprises. 
Jared: That's great. So, I guess one of my questions would be, how would 
mooting for a Supreme Court case differ from mooting for a State Appellate 
Court case or a state Supreme Court case?
Duane: Well, one of the things I was left with the impression that U.S. 
Supreme Court is not that much different than the Florida Supreme Court. A 
lot of the concerns are the same. 
But anytime you're at the highest level court like that, it's different than the 
intermediate courts. They are looking more at policy arguments, bigger 
concerns, bigger issues beyond what precedent might apply. So, you have to 
have that right mindset. 
One thing that was interesting in this particular moot court is the market 
judges would at times actually indicate, before they asked a question what 
justice they were channeling and making that question. 
Jared: That's incredible. 
Duane: I thought it was pretty cool in anticipating what that justice would say 
or what question they might ask. That definitely adds a little bit different 
element to it.
Jared: Did a fake Justice Thomas ever ask a question? 
Jared: No? No fake Justice Thomas? No questions? 
Duane: No. 
Jared: All right. Let's talk about the actual Supreme Court. You have prepared. 
You are ready to go. I believe, from the Facebook post, I saw that you had a 
day off beforehand where you were able to go visit the court as a tourist with 
your lovely bride.
Duane: I did. We did go to the court that day. I wanted to visit the Supreme 
Court Gift Shop, which I know you have seen before, but I did not realize until 
I had been to the court previously that there is a gift shop where they sell a lot 
of things and I wanted to make a stop there. And just to otherwise remember 
the lay of the land and that sort of thing. 
And the court building is open 8:30 or 9:00 o'clock to 4:00 or 4:30; just about 
every day, unless there's something unusual going on. So, it's easy to just go 
inside and poke around. 
And everybody was super friendly there, especially, if it came up that I was 
going to be there the next day. Everybody always wants to talk to you about 
your case and congratulate you and that sort of thing. So, it was actually a 
really cool experience to go there the day before and to sort of poke around a 
little bit.
Jared: That's great. And what Duane was talking about, about us both visiting 
before is with the Florida Bar Appellate Practice Section. Our retreat last year 
and October was to Washington, D.C. 
So, we were able to have conferences throughout the day and we had a 
reception at the U.S. Supreme Court at night. It was an amazing experience; 
getting to roam the halls when the court was effectively closed to the public 
and with a quick visit to the gift shop, for those who followed somebody else 
who knew where they were going. But that's about it with that. 
But the one thing about the court, when it's opened just to the public (and this 
is what I'm incredibly jealous of) is that the courtroom is not open to the 
public. So, you can only see it from a little wooden barrier from the outside 
and peek in.
Duane: That's right. I think we both have pictures of the entrance to the 
courtroom that you can just sort of peek in, but they don't generally allow 
people in the courtroom. 
I have heard, interestingly from other people that some tour groups do get to 
go inside the courtroom and actually sit, at least behind the bar, maybe not at 
counsel table. But generally speaking, you don't get into the courtroom now.
Jared: One day. One day. So, that's the day before; day of. I'm really curious 
about how it's different, as far as, where you go into the building as an 
attorney who's practicing there. And also, is the rest of it's still open to the 
public or what? 
Duane: Yes. So, that day we showed up. Oral arguments set for 10:00 and the 
building opens about 8:30. I think we were there at 8:30. We were a little 
eager to get started. 
Jared: I don't blame you. 
Duane: When the Uber drops you off across from the court, the first thing I 
noticed was the huge line of people out front. Even though our case is not of 
particular interest or importance to the public at large, apparently oral 
argument is just of interest generally. And it was sort of in that spring break 
rain. So, I imagine that there were a lot of tourists in town, but there was a 
huge line of people waiting for the oral arguments to open and to try and get a 
seat in there. 
Now, you don't have to wait in that line if you just want to go into the court 
and look around. That was a line specifically for the public for oral argument. I 
don't think everybody got in; that was a very significant line. 
But as an attorney, when you roll up, you walk past that line and there are 
entrances on the lower level; you don't go up the iconic stairs into the 
courtroom. You go around the right or left side and there are doors there that 
anybody in the public uses, not just an attorney entrance. It's the public 
entrance for people were not there for oral argument. 
And then once you get inside, they direct you to the clerk's office where you 
check in. And then ultimately, one of the marshals will take you up to the 
second floor where there is a lawyersÕ lounge.
Jared: The lawyers lounge. So, you walk into the lawyersÕ lounge. Who else is 
in there?
Duane: Well, because it was a day with only one case, it was pretty empty 
when we were there. It was just us and opposing counsel for our case. And it's 
not much of a lounge.
Jared: Why? WhatÕs it look like? Does it have justices all over the wall and 
historical figures like we saw in the other room?
Duane: It's one of the rooms. Well, this is just for you and the people who 
were there. But remember when we were at the appellate practice section 
gathering and we had a reception at a room off that interior courtyard? 
Jared: Yes. 
Duane: The lawyersÕ lounge is on that interior courtyard. It opens up into the 
middle of the building. So, it's just your typical room with some nice portraits 
in it, a bunch of chairs and there are restrooms for just lawyers there, which is 
nice. 
Jared: Especially if you're nervous {indistinct 23:38}?
Duane: Especially if you're nervous; it doesn't hurt. Interestingly, this relates 
to another thing I want to talk about, which is there are no electronics of any 
kind allowed in the courtroom. You can't bring your cell phone. You can't 
bring laptop, iPad. In fact, they wouldn't even let me take my Apple Watch. 
So, at this point, you have to decide what you're going to do with them. And 
the court staff said, ÒWell, you can either leave your stuff in the lawyersÕ 
lounge or there are lockers available. You can lock your stuff into a locker.Ó 
And it just for some reason, I find it very humorous that the lockers require a 
quarter. It's like the old fashioned lockers at amusement park or you have to 
put in a quarter to put your stuff in and take the key out and carry the key 
around you till you get your stuff out. 
I did do that, but now that I know what I know, I would probably just leave my 
stuff in the lawyersÕ lounge. There's nobody going in there besides the lawyers 
who are there for the cases. So, I think that's a pretty secure place.
Jared: I'm thinking there's not much more of a secure place than the interior 
rooms of the U.S. Supreme Court. 
Duane: I think so too. 
Jared: All right. So, you've gone to your locker now and you've deposited your 
quarter. Is it one of the lockers that returned your quarter when you were 
done? 
Duane: No, no. You're in it for the quarter. 
Jared: Oh, okay. So, you've dropped your stuff out there. Do you go back to the 
lawyers lounge?
Duane: Yeah. You hang out at the lawyersÕ lounge until the clerk comes in. 
And when I say the clerk, I mean, the actual clerk of the court, Scott Harris, 
who's the clerk. He comes in once all the lawyers are there and gives you a 
briefing or rundown on the day. 
It was very cool. It's sort of like seeing a celebrity, you know, just to see Scott 
Harris and heÕs a very nice guy. And he told us what the plan was. There were 
three opinions that were going to be issued that morning before court ever 
started. There were some motions that we're going to be heard to admit 
members to the U.S. Supreme Court Bar; he talked about that. And then he sort 
of gave some tips on what the expected customs are at the court. 
One of the things that you get from him at that point is you get this little card, 
this little handwritten card, very high tech. Sort of like the size of an index 
card. And it is your admission ticket to get you into the Supreme Court 
Library, which I did not do, but I probably should have. 
Jared: Jeez, Duane? 
Duane: I know. I recognized after the fact that the card said that it would get 
me in the library. I was too anxious that day to read the whole thing. But it 
also gets you admission into the court in front of the bar, you into the 
courtroom. So, pretty neat little souvenir that you get to keep. 
One of the things that the clerk explains to you is that there is a particular line 
that you open every argument with, and that is, ÒMr. Chief JusticeÓ and ÒMay it 
please the court.Ó And so, you'll notice everybody says that because this little 
card tells you to say that. 
It also tells you that you don't refer to the Chief Justice as Chief Justice 
Roberts. You refer to him as Mr. Chief Justice. That's just part of the ceremony.
Jared: I'm sure your experienced Supreme Court practitioners probably knew 
that without looking at the card. 
Duane: Right. The other thing the card says, which I thought was interesting, 
it says, ÒKeep account of your remaining time during argument.Ó And then it 
says in italics, ÒDo not make inquiry of the Chief Justice.Ó 
Jared: Wow.
Duane: I don't ask him how much time you have left. 
Jared: Okay. 
Duane: There is a clock. One thing nice is there is a clock that's visible from 
the podium.
Jared: Okay. So, one of the things that you mentioned a second ago was that 
the clerk had some tips for you. Do you remember what those tips were that 
he passed on?
Duane: Yeah, a lot. Some of what I just mentioned. I mean, he mentions you're 
not to start your argument until you're recognized by the Chief Justice. That 
you were supposed to say that particular line. He cautioned everyone, which 
you and I well know, not to not to refer to anyone as a judge; everyone behind 
that bench is a Justice. And he said, ÒWhile you are welcome to refer to them 
as Justice and their name, that it might be safer just to reference them as ÔYour 
honorÕ, unless you feel comfortable.Ó You know, a few tips along those lines. 
And he would certainly answer any questions. 
You know, the whole experience from Scott Harris to the marshal at the court, 
to anyone that we dealt with, everybody was extremely accommodating. You 
felt welcome. You did not feel like you were intruding upon someone else's 
place or that you didn't belong. I love the experience and that everyone there 
was there to make sure that you felt comfortable and could do the best job 
that you could do and was really very welcoming. And I thought that was 
great.
Jared: It sounds like they recognized the significance of this kind of visit for 
any practitioner who doesnÕt do it every day and they try to make it make it as 
comfortable for you as possible. 
Duane: Absolutely. 
Jared: Sounds great. Yeah. So, you're sitting in the lawyersÕ lounge and your 
case gets called or what happens?
Duane: The court said essentially, ÒYou can go to the courtroom whenever 
you're ready.Ó And so, what time better than the present? We moved 
immediately to the courtroom. 
Jared: Right. 
Duane: You have to go through a security check. You know, the typical metal 
detector. They don't have an X-ray machine. The public isn't allowed to bring 
in bags, but of course, the attorneys are. So, someone from the marshalÕs office 
goes through your bag in some detail, looking at it.
Jared: They make sure you don't have an Apple Watch stashed anywhere?
Duane: Right. They're looking for electronics, among other things, I'm sure. 
And they let you in to the courtroom and then you have to show your little 
white index card in order to actually move in front of the bar. 
At that point, they were already seating, most of the public was already seated 
at that point. So, the courtroom was starting to fill up.
Jared: So what did it feel like walking in here as a practitioner?
Duane: Jared, it was it was pretty amazing. I don't actually remember some of 
those first couple moments coming in because it was just kind of 
overwhelming and you're just trying to take it all in.
Jared: I'm trying to picture this myself. Are you coming in from the left hand 
side?
Duane: No. From the back, right down the middle. You walk right down the 
middle, through the bar and to counsel table.
Jared: And honestly, I don't remember. When you walk through the bar, is 
there the swinging door that we have in most of our courtrooms? 
Duane: I think so. 
Jared: You donÕt remember. I mean, that's the last thing you're paying 
attention to is what the door is.
Duane: I believe so. But I was really taking it all in at that point. Now, we went 
down and we sat on the left side. There's a large counsel table with a left turn 
in the middle. And the petitioners generally (this is another thing that I did not 
know) that petitioners generally sit on the left side and the respondent on the 
right. 
But I say generally, because the government, as the Solicitor General is 
arguing, they always sit on the far right side of the counsel table. So, if the 
government is supporting the petitioner, the sides reverse; the government's 
always on the right. 
So, generally petitioner on the left, but depending on what position the 
government is taking. If they're taking a position, sometimes that switches. So, 
that was an interesting little tidbit that I had never thought about.
Jared: I haven't heard that either. So, you're walking in, how many attorneys 
are with you on your side? How many are sitting at your table with you?
Duane: We had four attorneys on our side, two attorneys on the other side 
and then the Assistant Solicitor General.
Jared: And you take a seat at this point?
Duane: We did. We took a seat. The council table, it's a little tight with four 
people. They actually put a chair on the end; they sort of. So, that was a little 
bit weird. It's really better designed for 3 lawyers. 
Another thing that's interesting about the seating position isÉ and the clerk. 
This is another thing that the clerk mentioned to us in the briefing is when the 
attorney for one side stands and moves to the lectern, generally, everybody 
moves down a chair, closer to the middle. 
So, I'm sure so that you can pass notes or whatever or be in some contact if 
necessary. But yeah, we actually did. Everybody shifted the chair to the right 
when our side was at the lectern, which is interesting.
Jared: So, this may be getting ahead of our conversation, but what happens 
when that attorney sits back down? 
Duane: Everybody shifts back to the left. 
Jared: Interesting. Very interesting. Okay. So, when you have compose 
yourself and realized, ÒI'm really here?Ó What surprised you as you're sitting 
there looking around?
Duane: There are a few things. The first thing and I've heard people, 
everybody who has been at the court has said this to me, and I still didn't 
really internalize what it meant. 
The counsel table is extremely close to the bench. I mean, no one walks in 
front of the counsel table, between the counsel table and the bench. But even 
to do that, I almost think you'd have to turn sideways to get through there. It's 
very close to the bench. 
The justices are very close to you when they're seated. You really feel like 
you're there. I mean, I've argued at the Florida Supreme Court, and it's a 
different feeling because you're almost abutting the bench with your table. It's 
very, very close. And that was surprising to me.
Jared: And who else is up here at this point? Is there a bailiff or security or the 
clerk? Anybody else working on the bench?
Duane: Yeah. Before court starts, everybody sort of files in. And there is the 
clerk, Scott Harris, and I think somebody with him in the clerk's office sits. As 
we're looking at the bench to the left, the marshal is to the right of the bench. 
There are also some seats to the right that the law clerks of the various 
justices sit. 
Then there's quite a bit of seating immediately behind the council tables, but 
in front of the bar that separates the courtroom from the gallery and that is 
seating for Supreme Court bar members, who get sort of first shot at those 
seats. So, there is quite a quite a few of those seats and a lot of them were full. 
Those seats were not totally full for our argument. 
There is also a sketch artist who is in the courtroom, generally speaking, the 
gentleman who is there and I think is there a lot because he works for the 
SCOTUS blog. HeÕs a gentleman named, Art Lean, and he makes courtroom 
sketches because of course, there are no cameras of any kind allowed in the 
courtroom. 
Jared: So, the clerk had said that there was going to be opinions read. I'm 
guessing that's the first thing that happened before your argument. So, how 
does court start?
Duane: There's some sort of buzzer that alerts everyone that the court is 
coming. I don't know how to describe. It is a little different than what I've 
heard in any other courtrooms.
And then the marshal calls the court to order and the justices come out and 
they stand briefly in their position and sit. And of course, the courtroom all 
stands and then the marshal directs everybody to sit and the court starts.
Jared: Is there an announcement at the beginning of court? 
Duane: There is. And I wish I could tell you what it was. It was some sort of, 
ÒOh, yay. Oh, yay. Oh, yayÓ, you know, sort of thing. But again, I was a little 
caught up in the moment and I'm not sure that I heard it completely.
Jared: You got the gist of it though.
Duane: I did. 
Jared: Okay.
Duane: It's interesting, while we're talking about the seating, you know, the 
justices have a very particular way in which they enter the courtroom and 
they sit. And so, the Chief Justice sits in the middle, which is John Roberts and 
then the justices fill in alternating sides of him by seniority. 
So, the most senior judges sit towards the middle and the least senior judges 
sit on the outside. And so, it's always fascinated me that you might wind up 
with every seat, I suppose, in the courtroom if you're on the court long enough 
or most of them, but I guess you don't get too comfortable with one seat. 
So, as we were sitting on the left side, I was probably four feet from Justice 
Gorsuch and Sotomayor; they were very close. Justice Sotomayor is so close at 
that point that I was having a little bit of trouble seeing her over the bench 
because she's maybe not as tall as some of the justices, but they're very close. 
So, then it was Justice Breyer and Thomas and then, of course, Roberts in the 
middle and then Justice Ginsburg, who was there, Alito, Kagan and Kavanaugh. 
So, it's not even Justice Kavanaugh, who is the farthest from me wasÉ it just 
doesn't feel very far.
Jared: So, the court opens with reading of opinions today or this day. How 
does that start? Who reads them?
Duane: Yeah, that's something that I knew intellectually that the court 
announces all their opinions before they introduce them in writing, but I had 
never thought about that process. 
And so, when they have opinions to deliver on that day, they open the court 
and they go right into it. The author of the opinion presents it. 
It's interesting to me, Justice Kavanaugh read an opinion that he had authored 
and it seemed to me as though he read the opinion word for word. On the 
other hand, Justice Breyer had an opinion that he was presenting and then, 
you know, you don't have the opinion in front of you, so it's hard to say for 
sure, but it sounded more like he was speaking a little more 
extemporaneously about it. So, I thought that was interesting. 
And then there was another opinion that was delivered and Justice Breyer had 
comments in dissent. So, sometimes the dissenting justices are represented 
and say something in that process and apparently, sometimes they don't, 
because there was another case where there was a dissent, but no one spoke. 
So, I guess that that's a little bit flexible as to who wants to be heard on those 
topics. But it took about a half an hour for those three opinions to be delivered 
before we got to the to the business of the court.
Jared: And you had no indication of what those were going to be beforehand? 
Duane: No. And in fact, that's one of the things, if youÕve watched the alive 
SCOTUS blog in the mornings, there's always speculation about what opinions 
might be read that day and how many boxes of stuff were brought out to give 
them some indication of how many opinions might be read that day. So, no. 
Nobody knows until it's spoken at oral argument.
Jared: Very interesting. So, there are people speculating based on watching 
boxes being moved around the court?
Duane: Right. 
Jared: It's serious stuff. That make sense. So, we finally get to your case and 
you said you were the only case that day.
Duane: We were. And so, it starts; the chief justice calls the case. Every lawyer 
that that argued that day, he addressed by name. So, he was very well 
prepared to know who was arguing in the proper pronunciation of their name. 
So, he calls the case and calls the petitioner's lawyer by name and it starts.
Jared: And how much time does everybody have?
Duane: So, generally speaking, each side gets 30 minutes. Like in state court, 
as a petitioner, you can reserve rebuttal time, which we did. In this particular 
case, as I alluded to before, the government took 10 minutes of the 
respondentÕs time. So, the respondent actually only had 20 minutes and the 
government had 10. 
Now, there is an analog clock high above the chief justice that you can see, but 
there is also a box with lights. And so, there is a five minute warning light and 
there is an out of time. White a white light for five minutes, red light front of 
time. 
Interestingly, the clerk, Scott Harris, told usÉ one of the things (I'm 
remembering now) that he told us in that briefing was that if the light turns 
red, under previous chief justices, you were expected to stop midsentence and 
you were done. But the Justice Roberts does not handle it that way. And that if 
you ask permission to finish your thought that that will be allowed. So, a little 
bit more forgiving as far as that goes.
Jared: It's nice to hear; a little bit of good trivia for jeopardy next time. The 
case gets called, your co-council goes up, he announces the traditional opening 
line as set forth on the card the clerk has given you and starts arguing. Was it a 
hot bench? Did the justices have any questions?
Duane: It was a hot bench. There were a lot of questions. I think in the course 
of the argument, every justice asked a question with the exception of Justice 
Thomas. But, you know, that's not unusual.
Duane: Well, we talked about that. No, mock Justice Thomas in the Moot 
Court.
Duane: Right. He doesn't ask hard questions. Although, interestingly, he did 
ask a question in a case later that week, but on our day he did not. So, 
everybody else, though, had questions. 
And clearly, the argument was spent addressing questions. There wasn't a lot 
of time to strike out on your own path. It was definitely a directed discussion.
Jared: It's kind of the argument I think most appellate practitioners hoped for; 
youÕd rather have a hot bench. I know that's how I am. I think that's how you 
are, Duane: right?
Duane: Absolutely. I mean, if you're going to be there talking to the judges, 
you want to know what they're interested in. And you're going to be talking to 
justices, you'll certainly want to know what they're interested in. So, questions 
are better than no questions for sure.
Jared: And so, the things they were interested in, were they the things that 
you were hoping they were interested in?
Duane: I think so. For the most part, it's like any other appellate court. There 
were justices that we thought, by their questions, we thought were favoring 
our position. There were justices we thought were not in favor position. And 
there are others who are a big question mark.
So, at the end of the day, when we were looking at the case, we're hoping for 
maybe a 5:4 in our favor, but you just don't know. 
Jared: That close, huh? 
Duane: It's very hard. You know, there's a lot of predictions that are done 
before hand and attempts to guess who will go what way. And ultimately, you 
just don't know.
Jared: And from just a procedure or being in the court for the first time, was 
just watching or observing argument or being part of it, was that like what you 
expected or were there any surprises to you about how that proceeding 
occurred?
Duane: No, I don't think it was surprising. I think the argument was very 
much what I would have expected. And I think I alluded to this before, not 
really any different than practicing in front of another Supreme Court; not 
much different than practicing in front of the Florida Supreme Court. 
It feels different because it's kind of a whole different level and you've got this 
all this pomp and circumstance and tradition behind it. But ultimately, giving 
that type of oral argument is just giving an oral argument. And that was very 
much what I would have expected in any other court.
Jared: So oral argument is over. Your co-counsel has given as rebuttal. What 
does he do? How does he close out the argument?
Duane: Well, key sort of ends very abruptly at that point. The Chief Justice has 
a phrase that he says each time, which is that the case is submitted. And that's 
it.
Jared: So, that's it. So, your co-counsel sits down, Chief Justice probably 
doesn't even look around. He just announces, ÒCase is submittedÓ and nothing 
else is said?
Duane: I don't think so. That was all I recall hearing. There's not a lot of 
fanfare. The justices stood up, everybody stood up and they filed out of the 
courtroom. It definitely ends quickly.
Jared: Do they walk out in the same way they walked in, in alternating 
seniority?
Duane: You know, I think so. I couldn't be sure about that. But I will tell you 
one thing that I thought was interesting. When you're standing there, you can 
kind of get a good view that the bench is several steps up from whatever is 
behind the bench; behind that red curtain. And so, the justices have to go 
down a couple of stairs to leave. 
And I did notice Justice Thomas stopped and waited for Justice Ginsburg and 
took her hand and helped her down the stairs. So, I thought that was very nice.
Jared: That does seems very sweet. And if I recall correctly, your oral 
argument was just after Justice Ginsburg returned from her leave of absence, 
right? 
Duane: Yes. It was not long after that. So, we were happy for her to see her 
there and participating.
Jared: Right. That's wonderful. So, you leave the court with the other fellow 
attorneys. I would then ask you; was your was your wife in attendance?
Duane: She was. There is a limited number of seats that the court will 
designate for people who are not sitting at counsel table so that you can bring 
your clients or your partners or other people who worked on the case who 
there's no room to sit at counsel table. So, we did have a few extra seats. 
My client declined to attend. So, I was able to get one of those seats to my wife 
and also one of my wall partners. So, they were both able to come and watch 
the argument from a little bit farther back, but they certainly enjoyed it, too.
Jared: So what's this feather pen we always hear about?
Duane: Yeah. So, apparently, it's been a tradition at the court since John 
Marshall was Chief Justice that anyone who argues or sits at counsel table at 
the court gets a feather pen. When I say ÒI guessÓ I may not be using the 
terminology right. It's a goose feather quill that has to be dipped in to ink in 
order to write. 
So, I don't think that I will ever do that, but I do have my feather pen there. 
They're right there on the table as you come in. So, I quickly scooped that up 
and put it in my briefcase and that's another memento of the day that will 
probably be framed or something to keep. 
Jared: ThatÕs quite the souvenir. 
Duane: Definitely a good one.
Jared: I know we can't hold the court to any sort of timetable, but how long do 
you expect to hear what's going on?
Duane: Well, generally, and so the court is in recess starting in late June or 
early July. So, we would expect to do here by them before they wrap up this 
session. So, I would say as courts go a couple months, that's pretty good, right? 
I think that'sÉ 
Jared: That's not too bad. 
Duane: No. 
Jared: That's not too bad. 
Duane: No. That's admirable.
Jared: Do you think you'll go back and watching away some time and just get 
into line?
Duane: Well, see, the beautiful thing is for lawyers who are members of the 
Supreme Court bar, which is not difficult to do; you have to be a lawyer in 
good standing, you have to have someone who is already a member of the 
Supreme Court Bar to vouch for you and you have to pay a fee, of course. 
But if you do that and you get admitted to the Supreme Court Bar, you don't 
even have to have a case pending in front of the Supreme Court; you just have 
to apply. 
If you go through that process, then it's very easy to go see an oral argument. 
You just have to show up on oral argument day and those chairs I mentioned 
before are saved for Supreme Court Bar members and it's a first-come-first-
serve, but I think it's not that difficult to get in too anyway if you're an 
attorney. 
If you're not an attorney, you have to wait in that line. And I think how long 
that line is depends upon what case is being heard that day and what time of 
year it is and what the weather's like and whether the cherry trees are 
blossoming and all that sort of thing. 
Jared: Right. Right. 
Duane: But definitely, I would love to go back in any capacity and I would 
recommend any lawyers that are going to Washington on a trip, do it far 
enough in advance that you can get admitted to the Bar and go watch an 
argument, because it sure makes you feel like a lawyer. It's a great feeling.
Jared: I'm glad to say that I now know somebody who is a member of the 
Supreme Court Bar who may be getting a phone call from me in the near 
future.
Duane: I'd be I'd be happy to sign your application, Jared.
Jared: Unfortunately, it sounds like spouses of lawyers who are not lawyers 
can't come and sit with you in that line. So, they're stuck in the long line. 
Duane: That's the catch. Right. 
Jared: How is the long line work?
Duane: It is just a first-come-first-served too. And I have heard that the line 
can start forming at 4:00 or 5:00 o'clock in the morning on OA days and 
maybe even earlier if it's a day that they're arguing case of particular 
importance. But other than that, it's just a first come first serve line.
And, you know, how hard it is to wait in that line probably depends a lot on 
what the weather is like in D.C.
Jared: Right. Right. It still sounds better than Black Friday at Best Buy. 
Duane: Well, yeah. It's better than that. 
Jared: And I might as well ask this question. It's more of a basic question, but 
not everybody will know. What's the court dress? Is there required dress 
code?
Duane: You know, obviously, it's very formal for the lawyers. Everybody 
wears their best suit because you're wanting to make an impression.
Jared: Absolutely. I bought a new one for our visit last October.
Duane: Yeah. I brought a new suit for the argument. It wouldn't get Men's 
Warehouse as a sponsor of the show. 
There is a dress code for the audience, but I don't think it's as strict as you 
might think. But certainly, like ties aren't required or in that sort of thing. But, 
you know, just maintaining decorum. 
Jared: Right. 
Duane: On the dress, I thought I had mentioned, another thing that I did not 
fully appreciate, but the clerk and the Marshall and anyone who is arguing for 
the Solicitor General, they have a dress code. They wear morning coats, which 
is like a long formal coat, like you would wear maybe to a wedding or 
something. It's called a Morning Coat and more traditional dress and they all 
still wear those. So, I thought that was kind of interesting.
Jared: Kind of the one thing that harkens back to olden days.
Duane: Yeah. No, wigs, but Morning Coats.
Jared: Definitely no wigs. Just nobody makes the same potential oversight you 
did when we visited in October. Where's the gift shop again, so nobody misses 
it on the way out? 
Duane: So, the gift shop is on the first level towards the back left side of the 
building. It's right across from the cafeteria.
Jared: I mean, the first level almost feels like the basement a little bit. I mean, 
the most beautiful basement you've ever been in. But it feels like the basement 
compared to the main level.
Duane: It does. You know, the first level is sort of the working level. The 
clerk's office is there, the gift shop, the cafeteria. But there is a lot of stuff on 
display there. There's the big sculpture of John Marshall sitting in his chair. So, 
there's a lot of stuff to see there, but the real action is on the on the second 
floor and where the courtroom is. 
And I think there are some days that you can't even get to the second floor if 
court is in session. But if court is not in session, you get up to the second floor 
and peek into the courtroom like we were able to on that trip.
Jared: Very interesting. So, I have one last question about this. If you had the 
opportunity to argue this case yourself, would you have wanted to do it?
Duane: Yeah, absolutely. I mean, I guess what appellate lawyer wouldn't.; 
right?
Jared: Very true. No matter how nerve wracking it could be. Very true. 
Duane: Yeah. And certainly now, especially now, having been there and seen 
the process and understanding the process and seeing just how 
accommodating the court is and the clerk is would take away a lot of that 
nervousness that you would have if you had not been there. 
But the lesson to me was this is just another appellate court in some ways. In 
some ways, obviously, it's not. But in a practical matter, this is another 
appellate court. It's not an intermediate appellate court. But is it any different 
than a state supreme court? 
You know, it's very analogous. And I certainly see no reason why I couldn't 
have done that argument. And if I ever got the chance to do it, I wouldn't 
hesitate to do it. I think that it's something that we're trained to do as 
appellate lawyers and we just have to put aside the awe of what you're doing 
and say, ÒYeah, this is this is an appellate argument. This is what I'm trained to 
do and let's do it.Ó I would love to do it. 
You know, the fact is I never really had the opportunity to do this one; it was 
never really an option, just based on the circumstances. But if the 
circumstances were different, I wouldn't hesitate.
Jared: I think anybody listening to this podcast would probably be right there 
with you. 
Duane: Absolutely. 
Jared: All right. Did I miss anything about your trip to the U.S. Supreme Court?
Duane: No, I think we've covered it. Like I said, it was just an inspiring 
experience. So, glad I had the opportunity.
Jared: That's very cool. And congratulations for your trip and fingers crossed 
on the result of the unnamed case for which you were there for. 
Duane: Thank you. 
Jared: So, this is the fun part. Those of you who have listened to the podcast 
know that Duane often ends his podcast with a lightning round and putting his 
visitors on the hot seat and I get to turn the tables today. So, are you ready, 
Duane?
Duane: All right. Yeah, turning the guns around. Already. First question, 
Oxford comma in your writing?
Duane: Yeah, absolutely. I mean, I have gotten into a few Twitter arguments 
with people over this. I don't understand the reason not to use an Oxford 
comma. It adds clarity. It takes out the discretion. Absolutely.
Jared: So, Duane and I are both college professors and our mythical spare 
time. And do you tell your students the same thing; Oxford comma always? 
Duane: Oh, yeah. 
Jared: Absolutely. 
Duane: Yeah. And you know, most of them are not in a position to argue. So, 
I'm indoctrinating them early.
Jared: One or two spaces after a period. 
Duane: So, I addressed a little bit of this in the last episode. I am definitely two 
spaces. You know, I recognize that scene as archaic a little bit and the reasons 
date back to typesetting and typing and whatever. 
But to me, here's what I do. I put one space between a sentence and a citation 
that relates to that sentence and two spaces everywhere else. 
Jared: Mixing it up. I like it. 
Duane: I like the fact that it createsÉ the one space ties the citation to the 
sentence that goes before and the two spaces separate the sentences. I think 
it's an important visual spacing indicator and it makes your writing clearer.
Jared: I don't think I've ever heard anybody answer that question that way 
before. That is a unique as unique proposition. I wonder if anybody will adopt 
that with you. 
Duane: You should adopt it. I think it makes a lot of sense. 
Jared: I'll consider it. But I'm going to save my official answer for the next 
time I come back and I'm the guest. 
Duane: All right. 
Jared: All right, West Law or Alexis? 
Duane: You know, I prefer West Law. But the firm has changed contracts back 
and forth over the years and I can use either one. But I like West Law and I 
particularly like the West Law Next web interface. It works great on the web, 
it works great on my iPad. If given the choice right now, West Law.
Jared: All right, case name is underlining or italicizing?
Duane: Always italics. I dislike underlying. I dislike underlining in titles. I will 
take underlining off of titles of documents. ThereÕs been some studies that 
show and then underlining is not an aid to reading, that it makes it harder to 
read text that is underlined. I am not a fan of underlining anywhere.
Jared: Fair enough. I know the answer to this question. Iphone or Android? 
Duane: Always iPhone. 
Jared: You and your Apple Watch. Jeez. For pleasure reading; paperbacks or 
Kindle?
Duane: I always prefer a Kindle. Listen, I like paperback books and I like the 
feel of books. And sometimes, if I really like a book, I'll buy it in hardcover, just 
to have it. But when it comes to actually reading, I much prefer to read on a 
Kindle or these days on the Kindle app, on my phone or on my iPad.
Jared: So when it comes to a writing style and we'll stick with appellate. Also, 
for those of you who don't know, Duane is a prolific writer and more than just 
a appellate world. 
But for appellate purposes here; for your writing style, do you have a role 
model that you tend to try to imitate or emulate?
Duane: Sort of, I guess. And it doesn't really come from the legal world. But if I 
had to say that I've learned a lot from any particular author about style, I 
would say it's Ernest Hemingway. 
I like Hemingway's style a lot. He is very concise. He's very short. He's very to 
the point. He uses very plain language to create, you know, sort of pictures. He 
makes his thoughts clear without telling you what they are. 
And those are all things that I strive for in my writing. I try to be brief, concise 
to show every step of the reasoning, to get people to where I want to go and 
I'd like to think that that's influence in part by my reading and love of 
Hemmingway. 
Jared: Remind me again; how many pages was Old Man and the Sea?
Duane: You know, I don't remember, but it's relatively short. And if you're 
interested in Hemingway and his style, that's the best place to start.
Jared: So, that's it for Duane's podcast today of Issues on Appeal. Duane, 
thank you for letting me commandeer for a short while and interview you 
about your visit to the Supreme Court and learn a little bit about the 
mastermind behind this new podcast, which I love listening to and I'm 
honored to be a part of.
Duane: Jared, thanks. Thanks for your time. Thanks for doing this. I will 
definitely have you back on the podcast some other time. We have a lot of 
other things that we could talk about and we'll do that at some point. 
Just remind the listeners, if they want to get a hold of you. How did they do 
that? 
Jared: Sure. So, again, I'm with DPW Legal in the Tampa Bay area. You can get 
me on my phone there at 813-778- 5161. My email address is jared@ip-
appeals.co. Or I'm fairly active with the Florida Bar Appellate Practice 
sessions, so you can find me on their website there. I'm on social media. 
There aren't too many Jared Krukars around, much like your previous guests, 
Nick {indistinct 01:01:23} and Sarah Lulu. I mean, I'm pretty easy to find me 
on the bar or on social media; on Facebook or Twitter or LinkedIn.
Duane: Yeah, all of my guests so far have pretty unique names, but yeah, you 
sure are easy to find and you're pretty active in The Appellate Twitter and that 
sort of thing. So, people can follow you and see what you have to say.
Jared: I don't hide away too much, unfortunately.
Duane: Well, Jared, thanks for being my guest or maybe for me being your 
guest; I'm not sure. 
Jared: Whichever way you want to call it. It's been a pleasure and I'm very 
glad to be part of it. 
Duane: Thanks.
All right. Thanks to Gerard Krukar for being my guest or actually, my guest 
host on this week's Issues on Appeal podcast. Remember, podcasts are never 
legal advice and nothing that I say or anyone on the show says should ever be 
interpreted as legal advice for any particular situation. 
That being said, if you need legal advice, if you need the help of an appellate 
lawyer, I'd be happy to try and help. You can contact me at Issues on Appeal 
on Twitter or at my professional email D-D-A-I-K-B-R@shumaker.com. My 
contact information is always in the show notes that are available in your 
podcast player. 
Speaking of podcast players, I know that many of you were listening on an iOS 
device and many more of you probably want to. If so, you're probably using 
the Apple Podcast Player that everyone has pre-installed on their Apple 
devices. 
However, I would suggest to you that there are better alternatives. In 
particular, if you're using an iOS device, IÕd recommend the free app, Overcast, 
which is available on the App Store. Try it and I think you'll like it. 
I'd love to hear your comments and suggestions on the show. Just send me an 
email or Twitter DM, let me know that you're out there and that you're 
listening. 
Please keep listening, be a part of the show and help me spread the word. I've 
got another great show coming up next week about appellate pro bono 
opportunities and how you can get involved. And it's a lot easier than you 
might think.
And as always, thank you for considering this week's Issues on Appeal.




1

1