What Lawyers Should Know Before Walking Into Court

1. Know your judge. A legally sound argument can still fall flat if counsel ignores how a particular judge runs the courtroom.
2. Get to the winning point quickly. The panel invoked Abraham Lincoln as an example of advocacy built around clarity rather than unnecessary length.
3. Don’t bore the court. Persuasion is not measured by how many pages, cases or minutes an attorney can consume—it depends on whether the decision-maker understands why the lawyer should win.

By Samuel López | USA Herald

SAN FRANCISCO — Federal judges rarely get the chance to tell lawyers, outside an actual case, what makes an argument work and what makes them tune out.

On Thursday, they did.

Judges William Alsup and Susan Illston of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California joined Morrison Foerster partner William Frentzen for a Federal Bar Association discussion on courtroom persuasion. Judge Jeffrey White moderated the program, held at the Thelton E. Henderson Ceremonial Courtroom in San Francisco.

The advice was remarkably practical. Know the judge. Keep the argument interesting. And get to the strongest point fast.

That sounds simple. In federal litigation, it is not.

Lawyers routinely arrive at hearings carrying briefs packed with citations, factual records running hundreds or thousands of pages and several alternative theories for why their client should prevail. The natural temptation is to demonstrate mastery by explaining everything.

But a courtroom is not a law-school examination.

The judge has already read—or at least has access to—the briefing. Oral argument gives counsel something different: the opportunity to identify the issue that actually decides the motion and explain why the law and record point in one direction.

A strong advocate should be able to answer a basic question very early: Why should the court rule for my client?

If the answer does not become clear until minute 15 of a 20-minute argument, counsel may have already lost valuable ground.

Knowing the judge is equally important, but that does not mean trying to predict outcomes based on personality. It means knowing the court’s procedures, standing orders, prior rulings and approach to oral argument. Some judges want counsel to begin with prepared remarks. Others start firing questions almost immediately. Some want extensive factual detail. Others want counsel focused tightly on the controlling legal question.

Preparation means knowing the difference.

The Federal Bar Association called Thursday’s event the William Alsup Annual Trial Advocacy Program, expressly devoted this year to what makes courtroom advocacy “effective and compelling.” The session ran from 5 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. at the federal courthouse on Golden Gate Avenue.

There is also a lesson here for younger lawyers who believe persuasive advocacy requires sounding complicated.

Usually, the opposite is true.

The best courtroom argument is often the one a judge can repeat accurately after the lawyer sits down.

That requires command of the record, command of the law—and the discipline to know what can be left unsaid.

About the Author

Samuel López is a reporter and news correspondent for USA Herald who has covered legal and national issues for the publication since 2022. López is also a longtime legal professional with more than two decades of experience analyzing state and federal litigation, complex motions, evidentiary records and courtroom strategy. His legal background provides a practitioner’s perspective on how written advocacy, case preparation and oral argument operate beyond the headlines.

Enjoy Legal Reporting That Goes Beyond the Headline

If you value reporting that explains not only what happened, but what it means inside the courtroom, join readers of the USA Herald newsletter for investigative reporting, legal analysis and major national stories delivered directly to you.

Follow USA Herald on X at RealUSAHerald.