They may not have had the chance to spar with Justice Scalia or Justice Ginsburg, but it was the next best thing. On January 10, following the Supreme Court swearing in ceremony, members of Council of Appellate Lawyers and others gathered at the offices of Howrey Simon Arnold & White, and were reminded that, while doing something yourself is always the best way to learn, listening to those who have done it more often than you is a close second. CAL convened a panel of star Supreme Court advocates to share their experience—and advice—in practicing before the high court: Jerrold Ganzfried of Howrey as moderator, with Donald Ayer of Jones Day, Edwin Kneedler of the Solicitor General's office, and Richard Lazarus of Georgetown University Law Center as panelists.

The discussion was set apart by what is becoming the hallmark of CAL events—a refusal to be another run-of-the-mill, yawn-at-will legal seminar. Instead, the panelists offered real-world insights, honed through their more than 130 collective Supreme Court oral arguments, into appearing before the justices. Donald Ayer spoke about how to prepare for an argument. He explained that while an effective advocate will immerse herself in preparation just as she would in any appellate case, in the Supreme Court this immersion should usually last "for ten days or so" and will need to be broad enough to prepare the lawyer to field questions that might range from the topography of the Arizona roads to the construction of a statutory provision not directly implicated below. The purpose of this preparation, Ayer explained, should not be just to know the case thoroughly, but to be able to convey it in easily understandable, encapsulated terms. "Walking through an outline is not going to work in the Supreme Court," Ayer said. "What you want are sound bites that you can deliver well."

Professor Lazarus, who discussed using moot courts, also emphasized the importance of being able to quickly deliver the core of your argument in the high court. "You have to frontload your argument and deliver it in no more than ten seconds," explained Lazarus. Lazarus also gave practical tips for moot courts, based on his experience in directing a moot court program at Georgetown that provides practice runs for counsel in approximately two-thirds of the cases before the Court. The effective moot should usually last about an hour or two, take place about a week but no less than two days before the argument, and use lawyers who have experience appearing before the Court, rather than experts in the substantive area or law professors. "Most law professors are generally worthless for the moot court," Lazarus said because such experts tend to focus on the arcane, while the Court tends to seek the big picture.

The final panelist was Edwin Kneedler, who spoke on the argument itself. Mr. Kneedler stressed that the best style for delivering a Supreme Court argument is a conversational tone that the advocate is personally comfortable with, though Kneedler advised that telling jokes "almost never works" with the justices. Kneedler also explained that it is imperative in the argument that the advocate is "as familiar as possible" with any statutes involved in the case, that he knows the procedural posture of the case "inside and out," and that he always keep in mind "what's really at stake."

The consensus among those who attended the panel was that it was time well spent. The panelists not only provided a rare opportunity to receive expert advice on appearing before the Supreme Court, but gave tips that translate to oral argument in any court. "Suggestions like moving your eyes to another justice in order to switch gears or avoid losing time on a judge you know you can't win is not the kind of pointer you get everyday," said Chuck Cole, current CAL Chair, after attending the event. "This was sophisticated stuff."