1 minute read
From The Bench
INTERVIEW OF HON. RANDALL WARNER Maricopa County Superior Court
Name-calling, saber-rattle, grandstanding, attacking opposing counsel These things might make you feel good They might score points with your client But they do nothing to advance the cause of persuading the judge to rule in your favor More often, they do the opposite by undermining your credibility
Advertisement
4. If you were to recommend on book to a young lawyer (fiction or non-fiction) regarding the legal profession, which would it be?
1. In oral argument, what is one thing lawyers who appear in front of you should always do?
Listen to the judge’s questions and answer them For some reason, lawyers who would never let a witness duck or deflect a question think ducking or deflecting the judge’s question is a good strategy It isn’t Most of the time, it telegraphs a lack of confidence in your position The most persuasive thing you can do is answer the question directly, make a concession if you have to, and ask for the chance to elaborate or explain if necessary
2 Is there anything lawyers should avoid during oral arguments?
Going through each and every one of the arguments in the briefs. Oral argument is not the time to cover all bases. That’s what the briefs are for. Oral argument is the time to focus the judge’s attention on the critical points, and to answer questions the judge has. For every oral argument, you should prepare no more than two or three key points, and prepare for any questions you might be asked
3. What is your biggest pet peeve in written motions?
The Brethren, by Woodward and Armstrong. It’s the classic and hard-to-put-down account of the U.S. Supreme Court in the early Burger years. Maybe one day we’ll know how they got all that inside information out of an institution whose deliberations are supposed to be secret.
5. Who is your favorite Supreme Court Justice and why?
James Moeller He was the judge’s judge on the Arizona Supreme Court when I clerked there in the early 90’s More interested in deciding each case on the facts and law, less interested in sweeping pronouncements or doctrinal change, he was methodical and understood how a decision would affect trial courts In my view, that’s what judicial conservatism is
