1
00:00:03,520 --> 00:00:07,040
Speaker 1: Welcome to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. I'm June Grosso. Every

2
00:00:07,120 --> 00:00:09,680
Speaker 1: day we bring you insight an analysis into the most

3
00:00:09,720 --> 00:00:12,200
Speaker 1: important legal news of the day. You can find more

4
00:00:12,240 --> 00:00:16,160
Speaker 1: episodes of the Bloomberg Law Podcast on Apple Podcast, SoundCloud

5
00:00:16,280 --> 00:00:20,079
Speaker 1: and on Bloomberg dot com slash podcast. It's a rarefied

6
00:00:20,160 --> 00:00:23,440
Speaker 1: atmosphere when you're a lawyer arguing before the Supreme Court.

7
00:00:23,520 --> 00:00:26,560
Speaker 1: In fact, those lawyers who specialize in practice before the

8
00:00:26,680 --> 00:00:30,280
Speaker 1: justices are referred to as the Supreme Court bar and

9
00:00:30,440 --> 00:00:34,680
Speaker 1: competition is ramping up there. Joining me is Kimberly Strawbridge Robinson,

10
00:00:34,680 --> 00:00:38,559
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Law Supreme Court reporter. So Kimberly tell us how

11
00:00:38,600 --> 00:00:42,280
Speaker 1: this group emerged in the eighties to counter the expertise

12
00:00:42,400 --> 00:00:46,560
Speaker 1: of the attorneys in the Solicitor General's office. Sure, June, Well,

13
00:00:46,800 --> 00:00:50,160
Speaker 1: the situation in the nineteen eighties was quite different than um,

14
00:00:50,159 --> 00:00:53,040
Speaker 1: what you've just described. It was really a hodgepodge of

15
00:00:53,040 --> 00:00:57,280
Speaker 1: attorneys beyond the Solicitor General's Office, which is uh, the

16
00:00:57,320 --> 00:01:00,440
Speaker 1: office that represents the federal government. You know, usually if

17
00:01:00,440 --> 00:01:03,280
Speaker 1: you would handle an appeal at the lower courts, you

18
00:01:03,320 --> 00:01:05,959
Speaker 1: would also handle it at the Supreme Court. Um, there

19
00:01:05,959 --> 00:01:10,480
Speaker 1: were really only a handful of attorneys who really specialized

20
00:01:10,480 --> 00:01:13,320
Speaker 1: in Supreme Court practice. I think one name that everybody

21
00:01:13,360 --> 00:01:16,440
Speaker 1: will most likely know is Chief Justice John Roberts was

22
00:01:16,480 --> 00:01:20,120
Speaker 1: one of those. But that's really different today, where most

23
00:01:20,360 --> 00:01:23,720
Speaker 1: of the litigation is handled either by attorneys at the

24
00:01:23,760 --> 00:01:28,640
Speaker 1: Solicitor General's Office or UM in some kind of Supreme

25
00:01:28,640 --> 00:01:31,720
Speaker 1: Court focus practice. And I'm not sure if that was

26
00:01:31,760 --> 00:01:34,280
Speaker 1: the point of Supreme Court practice was to kind of

27
00:01:34,280 --> 00:01:38,600
Speaker 1: counter the Solicitor General's office, but it certainly has been UM.

28
00:01:38,760 --> 00:01:41,640
Speaker 1: One of the results is that the Solicitor General's Office

29
00:01:41,680 --> 00:01:45,200
Speaker 1: hasn't done as well since these UM focused practices have

30
00:01:45,280 --> 00:01:48,400
Speaker 1: shown up, and you're seeing a trend in firm setting

31
00:01:48,440 --> 00:01:52,040
Speaker 1: up dedicated Supreme Court practices. Well we are now there

32
00:01:52,040 --> 00:01:54,960
Speaker 1: are already a lot of players UM in this space,

33
00:01:55,040 --> 00:01:58,480
Speaker 1: so the numbers are small, but they are growing. And

34
00:01:58,560 --> 00:02:01,440
Speaker 1: so just earlier this year we heard, you know, the

35
00:02:01,440 --> 00:02:05,080
Speaker 1: New York megafirm Paul weiss Uh started a Supreme Court

36
00:02:05,160 --> 00:02:08,400
Speaker 1: focus UM. So it's definitely something that's growing. Does it

37
00:02:08,480 --> 00:02:11,119
Speaker 1: seem odd that it's growing and they're setting up new

38
00:02:11,160 --> 00:02:14,280
Speaker 1: practices when there were fewer cases to sort of fight

39
00:02:14,360 --> 00:02:17,400
Speaker 1: over Since the Roberts Court is taking far less cases

40
00:02:17,440 --> 00:02:20,320
Speaker 1: than the Court used to. Well, right, And it's actually

41
00:02:20,400 --> 00:02:23,680
Speaker 1: kind of interesting that since the nineteen eighties the number

42
00:02:23,720 --> 00:02:25,920
Speaker 1: of cases that the Supreme Court has been hearing has

43
00:02:25,960 --> 00:02:27,880
Speaker 1: fallen quite a bit. It used to be somewhere around

44
00:02:28,040 --> 00:02:30,600
Speaker 1: a hundred and fifty. Last term it was closer to

45
00:02:30,680 --> 00:02:33,720
Speaker 1: seventy UM. But you know, attorneys who practiced in this

46
00:02:33,840 --> 00:02:36,680
Speaker 1: field say, that's one reason why it's important not just

47
00:02:36,760 --> 00:02:40,000
Speaker 1: to have a Supreme Court focused appellate team, but one

48
00:02:40,040 --> 00:02:43,200
Speaker 1: that focuses on the lower federal appellate courts too. So

49
00:02:43,440 --> 00:02:47,360
Speaker 1: are these practices moneymakers? Well, they can be, and I

50
00:02:47,400 --> 00:02:49,720
Speaker 1: think a big component of that is not trying just

51
00:02:49,880 --> 00:02:53,079
Speaker 1: for the small slice of Supreme Court business that there

52
00:02:53,200 --> 00:02:55,560
Speaker 1: is UM. But you know, people who practice in the

53
00:02:55,600 --> 00:02:58,840
Speaker 1: space say it can really be a compliment two affirms,

54
00:02:58,840 --> 00:03:02,239
Speaker 1: other litigation and even business activities. You know, you don't

55
00:03:02,280 --> 00:03:05,000
Speaker 1: want to turn away a client whose case you've handled

56
00:03:05,280 --> 00:03:08,000
Speaker 1: UM from the regulatory stage to trial to the pellet

57
00:03:08,000 --> 00:03:11,240
Speaker 1: courts just because you don't have the Supreme Court specialty.

58
00:03:11,480 --> 00:03:13,880
Speaker 1: You talked to Tom Golstein, who is a well known

59
00:03:13,919 --> 00:03:17,480
Speaker 1: Supreme Court practitioner, and he says, lawyers can't build as

60
00:03:17,480 --> 00:03:20,960
Speaker 1: many hours to clients with a Supreme Court case as

61
00:03:21,040 --> 00:03:24,320
Speaker 1: they would for a trial for example. Well that's right.

62
00:03:24,400 --> 00:03:26,359
Speaker 1: So you know, if you think about a trial at

63
00:03:26,360 --> 00:03:28,560
Speaker 1: a big law firm, you're gonna need a lot of

64
00:03:28,639 --> 00:03:30,760
Speaker 1: young associates to do a lot of the grunt work.

65
00:03:30,800 --> 00:03:33,360
Speaker 1: There's all these depositions to do, there's usually millions of

66
00:03:33,400 --> 00:03:36,880
Speaker 1: pages of discovery work. Um, there's lots of witnesses to prep.

67
00:03:37,080 --> 00:03:38,480
Speaker 1: But that's not going to be the case with a

68
00:03:38,520 --> 00:03:41,080
Speaker 1: Supreme Court case. And that's why, you know, they say

69
00:03:41,120 --> 00:03:43,960
Speaker 1: it's really important to get Supreme Court and a pellet

70
00:03:44,000 --> 00:03:47,040
Speaker 1: advocates involved in all stages of the litigation, including at

71
00:03:47,080 --> 00:03:49,440
Speaker 1: the at the trial phase. And does it give a

72
00:03:49,520 --> 00:03:54,280
Speaker 1: firm a sort of panache to have a Supreme Court practice? Well? Absolutely,

73
00:03:54,320 --> 00:03:56,640
Speaker 1: I mean this is really when attorneys are at the

74
00:03:56,640 --> 00:03:59,480
Speaker 1: top of their game. Um. You know, it's often the

75
00:03:59,520 --> 00:04:02,880
Speaker 1: first thing that clients UH see of your law firm.

76
00:04:03,160 --> 00:04:06,280
Speaker 1: It involves really high stakes and high profile issues. But

77
00:04:06,680 --> 00:04:10,440
Speaker 1: beyond clients, it's really important for getting the really top talent.

78
00:04:10,800 --> 00:04:14,120
Speaker 1: If somebody is looking for the opportunity to work on appeals,

79
00:04:14,720 --> 00:04:17,640
Speaker 1: having a Supreme Court practice is you know, something that

80
00:04:17,800 --> 00:04:19,880
Speaker 1: was really attracted some of the cream of the crop.

81
00:04:20,400 --> 00:04:23,839
Speaker 1: This term, just five private Washington attorneys argued in a

82
00:04:23,960 --> 00:04:26,880
Speaker 1: quarter of the Supreme Courts cases. And the justices know

83
00:04:27,040 --> 00:04:30,120
Speaker 1: their names. And what kind of an advantage does it

84
00:04:30,279 --> 00:04:34,560
Speaker 1: give them knowing the justices and the justices knowing them, Well,

85
00:04:34,640 --> 00:04:37,080
Speaker 1: it gives them a really big advantage. Not you know,

86
00:04:37,160 --> 00:04:40,360
Speaker 1: most obviously, I think in the arguments they know these

87
00:04:40,400 --> 00:04:42,960
Speaker 1: justices and what kinds of questions they want to ask,

88
00:04:43,120 --> 00:04:45,640
Speaker 1: and they know that the justices are looking beyond just

89
00:04:45,760 --> 00:04:48,800
Speaker 1: this particular case and can provide them with broader answers.

90
00:04:49,080 --> 00:04:51,880
Speaker 1: But we see even in the outcome of the cases um.

91
00:04:51,880 --> 00:04:54,240
Speaker 1: There was a recent study that showed that Supreme Court

92
00:04:54,560 --> 00:04:58,280
Speaker 1: um experts actually have a better record UM than individuals

93
00:04:58,279 --> 00:05:00,480
Speaker 1: who are practicing just their first or second time before

94
00:05:00,480 --> 00:05:05,960
Speaker 1: the justices. This term, only seventeen percent of Supreme Court

95
00:05:06,000 --> 00:05:10,080
Speaker 1: cases were argued by women. Are any of the firm's

96
00:05:10,160 --> 00:05:14,000
Speaker 1: addressing that lack of gender diversity among the advocates at

97
00:05:14,000 --> 00:05:17,640
Speaker 1: the court? Well, you know, the lack of diversity is

98
00:05:17,680 --> 00:05:20,200
Speaker 1: not just a problem with advocates before the Supreme Court,

99
00:05:20,240 --> 00:05:24,560
Speaker 1: but it really um infects the entire um Judiciary and

100
00:05:24,720 --> 00:05:27,680
Speaker 1: the you know, the the law um as a whole.

101
00:05:27,760 --> 00:05:30,479
Speaker 1: And so we see the issue with law firms trying

102
00:05:30,520 --> 00:05:34,240
Speaker 1: to hold onto female associates UM at the partnership and

103
00:05:34,240 --> 00:05:36,800
Speaker 1: we even see it UM in the Federal judiciary. Just

104
00:05:36,880 --> 00:05:39,960
Speaker 1: a third of the judges in the Federal Judiciary are

105
00:05:40,040 --> 00:05:43,279
Speaker 1: women UM. And that's really just looking at one angle

106
00:05:43,440 --> 00:05:45,200
Speaker 1: of diversity. There are a lot of other angles of

107
00:05:45,240 --> 00:05:48,039
Speaker 1: diversity that we're not even touching upon. So it's a

108
00:05:48,080 --> 00:05:51,039
Speaker 1: problem that firms are trying to address UM. But whether

109
00:05:51,080 --> 00:05:53,719
Speaker 1: they're there will be successful in the future remains to

110
00:05:53,760 --> 00:05:57,440
Speaker 1: be seen. They certainly haven't been so yet. And Kimberly,

111
00:05:57,720 --> 00:06:00,400
Speaker 1: is it possible for a boutique law for arm to

112
00:06:00,480 --> 00:06:03,040
Speaker 1: handle a lot of Supreme Court cases or are they

113
00:06:03,080 --> 00:06:06,440
Speaker 1: reserved for these big law firms. What we see the

114
00:06:06,480 --> 00:06:09,840
Speaker 1: Supreme Court focus UM expanding to really all sizes of

115
00:06:09,920 --> 00:06:12,479
Speaker 1: law firms, you know, from the big Paul Weiss of

116
00:06:12,520 --> 00:06:14,520
Speaker 1: the world that I talked about earlier that are really

117
00:06:14,520 --> 00:06:18,000
Speaker 1: a mega firm UM to the solo practitioners. There's one

118
00:06:18,360 --> 00:06:21,200
Speaker 1: UM new solo practitioner on the beat who has gotten

119
00:06:21,200 --> 00:06:25,000
Speaker 1: three of the courts seventy arguments just a few terms ago,

120
00:06:25,080 --> 00:06:27,280
Speaker 1: which is a really big chunk of the work. And

121
00:06:27,320 --> 00:06:29,640
Speaker 1: so you know, a lot of advocates I spoke to

122
00:06:29,880 --> 00:06:32,040
Speaker 1: UM who work at these smaller firms say it can

123
00:06:32,120 --> 00:06:35,200
Speaker 1: really be perfect for a smaller firm, especially UM, a

124
00:06:35,200 --> 00:06:37,520
Speaker 1: bookish attorney who doesn't want to be around a lot

125
00:06:37,520 --> 00:06:40,800
Speaker 1: of other people. Thanks so much for joining us. Kimberly.

126
00:06:41,200 --> 00:06:47,359
Speaker 1: That's Kimberly Strawbridge Robinson, Bloomberg Supreme Court Reporter. Thanks for

127
00:06:47,440 --> 00:06:50,680
Speaker 1: listening to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can subscribe and

128
00:06:50,760 --> 00:06:54,000
Speaker 1: listen to the show on Apple Podcast, SoundCloud and on

129
00:06:54,040 --> 00:06:58,800
Speaker 1: Bloomberg dot com slash podcast. I'm June Basso. This is

130
00:06:58,839 --> 00:07:03,000
Speaker 1: Bloomberg given the patent to the end the end of

131
00:07:03,120 --> 00:07:03,960
Speaker 1: compe