Comments on: “Ask the Author”: Richard Lazarus, Part I http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/%e2%80%9cask-the-author%e2%80%9d-richard-lazarus-part-i/ The Supreme Court of the United States blog Thu, 26 Jun 2008 21:56:34 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: Richard Lazarus http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/%e2%80%9cask-the-author%e2%80%9d-richard-lazarus-part-i/comment-page-1/#comment-13286 Richard Lazarus Fri, 30 Nov 2007 17:59:15 +0000 http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/%e2%80%9cask-the-author%e2%80%9d-richard-lazarus-part-i/#comment-13286 Thanks for these comments and questions. Here are some quick responses. 1. No doubt the Court benefits from better advocacy, especially to the extent that the Court depends on good advocates bringing important cases to their attention. The Justices cannot go out on their own and bring cases (although CJ John Marshall reportedly did some of that when he was CJ, apparently even drafting (albeit not signing!) petitions filed with the Court that he thought warranted review). But, I think I would use the word "empowerment" more to describe the clients represented by these expert SCT advocates. These attorneys are really good at what they do and those who have the benefit of that skill utilized on their behalf are certainly empowered before the Court as a result. 2. How the specialized SCT Bar may have influenced the Court's docket is something I discuss more fully in the article. As elaborated upon in Parts II and III of this series, I contend that the Court's striking interest in business law issues, which has been accelerating over the last decade, is a product of the emergence of a modern SCT Bar. While not to the total exclusion of other clients, the Bar's primary (or at least most desired) clients are those private business clients who can pay full fare for the services of the private Bar It is therefore not surprsing that the interests of those business clients are enjoying greater success these days. The lawyers who represent these clients are very good at what they do, which includes getting petitions granted and then either winning on the merits or minimizing their losses. Thanks for these comments and questions. Here are some quick responses.

1. No doubt the Court benefits from better advocacy, especially to the extent that the Court depends on good advocates bringing important cases to their attention. The Justices cannot go out on their own and bring cases (although CJ John Marshall reportedly did some of that when he was CJ, apparently even drafting (albeit not signing!) petitions filed with the Court that he thought warranted review). But, I think I would use the word “empowerment” more to describe the clients represented by these expert SCT advocates. These attorneys are really good at what they do and those who have the benefit of that skill utilized on their behalf are certainly empowered before the Court as a result.

2. How the specialized SCT Bar may have influenced the Court’s docket is something I discuss more fully in the article. As elaborated upon in Parts II and III of this series, I contend that the Court’s striking interest in business law issues, which has been accelerating over the last decade, is a product of the emergence of a modern SCT Bar. While not to the total exclusion of other clients, the Bar’s primary (or at least most desired) clients are those private business clients who can pay full fare for the services of the private Bar It is therefore not surprsing that the interests of those business clients are enjoying greater success these days. The lawyers who represent these clients are very good at what they do, which includes getting petitions granted and then either winning on the merits or minimizing their losses.

]]> By: Paul Vamvas http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/%e2%80%9cask-the-author%e2%80%9d-richard-lazarus-part-i/comment-page-1/#comment-13269 Paul Vamvas Thu, 29 Nov 2007 15:27:56 +0000 http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/%e2%80%9cask-the-author%e2%80%9d-richard-lazarus-part-i/#comment-13269 Another question I would be interested in knowing the answer to, and perhaps the fuller article deals with it, is how,if at all, this growth of the specialized Supreme Court bar has changed the nature of the issues brought before the Court. Another question I would be interested in knowing the answer to, and perhaps the fuller article deals with it, is how,if at all, this growth of the specialized Supreme Court bar has changed the nature of the issues brought before the Court.

]]> By: Jeffrey Kiok http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/%e2%80%9cask-the-author%e2%80%9d-richard-lazarus-part-i/comment-page-1/#comment-13245 Jeffrey Kiok Wed, 28 Nov 2007 23:43:09 +0000 http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/%e2%80%9cask-the-author%e2%80%9d-richard-lazarus-part-i/#comment-13245 A question I would ask Prof. Lazarus is, "What are the legal implications of the modern Supreme Court bar? Specifically, if expert advocates are generalizing narrow lower-court decisions to give the actuality/appearance of Circuit splits, and spinning those generalizations to what they know Justices are interested in, does this elevate the power of the Supreme Court Justices? As in, can a Justice expect that, essentially, no matter the state of lower court, there will be expert Supreme Court advocates who will be writing some cert petition to the issue they want to write on? A question I would ask Prof. Lazarus is, “What are the legal implications of the modern Supreme Court bar? Specifically, if expert advocates are generalizing narrow lower-court decisions to give the actuality/appearance of Circuit splits, and spinning those generalizations to what they know Justices are interested in, does this elevate the power of the Supreme Court Justices? As in, can a Justice expect that, essentially, no matter the state of lower court, there will be expert Supreme Court advocates who will be writing some cert petition to the issue they want to write on?

]]>