Speaker 1: Welcome to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. I'm June Grosso. Every
Speaker 1: day we bring you insight an analysis into the most
Speaker 1: important legal news of the day. You can find more
Speaker 1: episodes of the Bloomberg Law Podcast on Apple Podcast, SoundCloud
Speaker 1: and on Bloomberg dot com slash podcast. It's a rarefied
Speaker 1: atmosphere when you're a lawyer arguing before the Supreme Court.
Speaker 1: In fact, those lawyers who specialize in practice before the
Speaker 1: justices are referred to as the Supreme Court bar and
Speaker 1: competition is ramping up there. Joining me is Kimberly Strawbridge Robinson,
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Law Supreme Court reporter. So Kimberly tell us how
Speaker 1: this group emerged in the eighties to counter the expertise
Speaker 1: of the attorneys in the Solicitor General's office. Sure, June, Well,
Speaker 1: the situation in the nineteen eighties was quite different than um,
Speaker 1: what you've just described. It was really a hodgepodge of
Speaker 1: attorneys beyond the Solicitor General's Office, which is uh, the
Speaker 1: office that represents the federal government. You know, usually if
Speaker 1: you would handle an appeal at the lower courts, you
Speaker 1: would also handle it at the Supreme Court. Um, there
Speaker 1: were really only a handful of attorneys who really specialized
Speaker 1: in Supreme Court practice. I think one name that everybody
Speaker 1: will most likely know is Chief Justice John Roberts was
Speaker 1: one of those. But that's really different today, where most
Speaker 1: of the litigation is handled either by attorneys at the
Speaker 1: Solicitor General's Office or UM in some kind of Supreme
Speaker 1: Court focus practice. And I'm not sure if that was
Speaker 1: the point of Supreme Court practice was to kind of
Speaker 1: counter the Solicitor General's office, but it certainly has been UM.
Speaker 1: One of the results is that the Solicitor General's Office
Speaker 1: hasn't done as well since these UM focused practices have
Speaker 1: shown up, and you're seeing a trend in firm setting
Speaker 1: up dedicated Supreme Court practices. Well we are now there
Speaker 1: are already a lot of players UM in this space,
Speaker 1: so the numbers are small, but they are growing. And
Speaker 1: so just earlier this year we heard, you know, the
Speaker 1: New York megafirm Paul weiss Uh started a Supreme Court
Speaker 1: focus UM. So it's definitely something that's growing. Does it
Speaker 1: seem odd that it's growing and they're setting up new
Speaker 1: practices when there were fewer cases to sort of fight
Speaker 1: over Since the Roberts Court is taking far less cases
Speaker 1: than the Court used to. Well, right, And it's actually
Speaker 1: kind of interesting that since the nineteen eighties the number
Speaker 1: of cases that the Supreme Court has been hearing has
Speaker 1: fallen quite a bit. It used to be somewhere around
Speaker 1: a hundred and fifty. Last term it was closer to
Speaker 1: seventy UM. But you know, attorneys who practiced in this
Speaker 1: field say, that's one reason why it's important not just
Speaker 1: to have a Supreme Court focused appellate team, but one
Speaker 1: that focuses on the lower federal appellate courts too. So
Speaker 1: are these practices moneymakers? Well, they can be, and I
Speaker 1: think a big component of that is not trying just
Speaker 1: for the small slice of Supreme Court business that there
Speaker 1: is UM. But you know, people who practice in the
Speaker 1: space say it can really be a compliment two affirms,
Speaker 1: other litigation and even business activities. You know, you don't
Speaker 1: want to turn away a client whose case you've handled
Speaker 1: UM from the regulatory stage to trial to the pellet
Speaker 1: courts just because you don't have the Supreme Court specialty.
Speaker 1: You talked to Tom Golstein, who is a well known
Speaker 1: Supreme Court practitioner, and he says, lawyers can't build as
Speaker 1: many hours to clients with a Supreme Court case as
Speaker 1: they would for a trial for example. Well that's right.
Speaker 1: So you know, if you think about a trial at
Speaker 1: a big law firm, you're gonna need a lot of
Speaker 1: young associates to do a lot of the grunt work.
Speaker 1: There's all these depositions to do, there's usually millions of
Speaker 1: pages of discovery work. Um, there's lots of witnesses to prep.
Speaker 1: But that's not going to be the case with a
Speaker 1: Supreme Court case. And that's why, you know, they say
Speaker 1: it's really important to get Supreme Court and a pellet
Speaker 1: advocates involved in all stages of the litigation, including at
Speaker 1: the at the trial phase. And does it give a
Speaker 1: firm a sort of panache to have a Supreme Court practice? Well? Absolutely,
Speaker 1: I mean this is really when attorneys are at the
Speaker 1: top of their game. Um. You know, it's often the
Speaker 1: first thing that clients UH see of your law firm.
Speaker 1: It involves really high stakes and high profile issues. But
Speaker 1: beyond clients, it's really important for getting the really top talent.
Speaker 1: If somebody is looking for the opportunity to work on appeals,
Speaker 1: having a Supreme Court practice is you know, something that
Speaker 1: was really attracted some of the cream of the crop.
Speaker 1: This term, just five private Washington attorneys argued in a
Speaker 1: quarter of the Supreme Courts cases. And the justices know
Speaker 1: their names. And what kind of an advantage does it
Speaker 1: give them knowing the justices and the justices knowing them, Well,
Speaker 1: it gives them a really big advantage. Not you know,
Speaker 1: most obviously, I think in the arguments they know these
Speaker 1: justices and what kinds of questions they want to ask,
Speaker 1: and they know that the justices are looking beyond just
Speaker 1: this particular case and can provide them with broader answers.
Speaker 1: But we see even in the outcome of the cases um.
Speaker 1: There was a recent study that showed that Supreme Court
Speaker 1: um experts actually have a better record UM than individuals
Speaker 1: who are practicing just their first or second time before
Speaker 1: the justices. This term, only seventeen percent of Supreme Court
Speaker 1: cases were argued by women. Are any of the firm's
Speaker 1: addressing that lack of gender diversity among the advocates at
Speaker 1: the court? Well, you know, the lack of diversity is
Speaker 1: not just a problem with advocates before the Supreme Court,
Speaker 1: but it really um infects the entire um Judiciary and
Speaker 1: the you know, the the law um as a whole.
Speaker 1: And so we see the issue with law firms trying
Speaker 1: to hold onto female associates UM at the partnership and
Speaker 1: we even see it UM in the Federal judiciary. Just
Speaker 1: a third of the judges in the Federal Judiciary are
Speaker 1: women UM. And that's really just looking at one angle
Speaker 1: of diversity. There are a lot of other angles of
Speaker 1: diversity that we're not even touching upon. So it's a
Speaker 1: problem that firms are trying to address UM. But whether
Speaker 1: they're there will be successful in the future remains to
Speaker 1: be seen. They certainly haven't been so yet. And Kimberly,
Speaker 1: is it possible for a boutique law for arm to
Speaker 1: handle a lot of Supreme Court cases or are they
Speaker 1: reserved for these big law firms. What we see the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court focus UM expanding to really all sizes of
Speaker 1: law firms, you know, from the big Paul Weiss of
Speaker 1: the world that I talked about earlier that are really
Speaker 1: a mega firm UM to the solo practitioners. There's one
Speaker 1: UM new solo practitioner on the beat who has gotten
Speaker 1: three of the courts seventy arguments just a few terms ago,
Speaker 1: which is a really big chunk of the work. And
Speaker 1: so you know, a lot of advocates I spoke to
Speaker 1: UM who work at these smaller firms say it can
Speaker 1: really be perfect for a smaller firm, especially UM, a
Speaker 1: bookish attorney who doesn't want to be around a lot
Speaker 1: of other people. Thanks so much for joining us. Kimberly.
Speaker 1: That's Kimberly Strawbridge Robinson, Bloomberg Supreme Court Reporter. Thanks for
Speaker 1: listening to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can subscribe and
Speaker 1: listen to the show on Apple Podcast, SoundCloud and on
Speaker 1: Bloomberg dot com slash podcast. I'm June Basso. This is
Speaker 1: Bloomberg given the patent to the end the end of
Speaker 1: compe