WEBVTT - More Competition for Supreme Court Stars

0:00:03.520 --> 0:00:07.040
<v Speaker 1>Welcome to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. I'm June Grosso. Every

0:00:07.120 --> 0:00:09.680
<v Speaker 1>day we bring you insight an analysis into the most

0:00:09.720 --> 0:00:12.200
<v Speaker 1>important legal news of the day. You can find more

0:00:12.240 --> 0:00:16.160
<v Speaker 1>episodes of the Bloomberg Law Podcast on Apple Podcast, SoundCloud

0:00:16.280 --> 0:00:20.079
<v Speaker 1>and on Bloomberg dot com slash podcast. It's a rarefied

0:00:20.160 --> 0:00:23.440
<v Speaker 1>atmosphere when you're a lawyer arguing before the Supreme Court.

0:00:23.520 --> 0:00:26.560
<v Speaker 1>In fact, those lawyers who specialize in practice before the

0:00:26.680 --> 0:00:30.280
<v Speaker 1>justices are referred to as the Supreme Court bar and

0:00:30.440 --> 0:00:34.680
<v Speaker 1>competition is ramping up there. Joining me is Kimberly Strawbridge Robinson,

0:00:34.680 --> 0:00:38.559
<v Speaker 1>Bloomberg Law Supreme Court reporter. So Kimberly tell us how

0:00:38.600 --> 0:00:42.280
<v Speaker 1>this group emerged in the eighties to counter the expertise

0:00:42.400 --> 0:00:46.560
<v Speaker 1>of the attorneys in the Solicitor General's office. Sure, June, Well,

0:00:46.800 --> 0:00:50.160
<v Speaker 1>the situation in the nineteen eighties was quite different than um,

0:00:50.159 --> 0:00:53.040
<v Speaker 1>what you've just described. It was really a hodgepodge of

0:00:53.040 --> 0:00:57.280
<v Speaker 1>attorneys beyond the Solicitor General's Office, which is uh, the

0:00:57.320 --> 0:01:00.440
<v Speaker 1>office that represents the federal government. You know, usually if

0:01:00.440 --> 0:01:03.280
<v Speaker 1>you would handle an appeal at the lower courts, you

0:01:03.320 --> 0:01:05.959
<v Speaker 1>would also handle it at the Supreme Court. Um, there

0:01:05.959 --> 0:01:10.480
<v Speaker 1>were really only a handful of attorneys who really specialized

0:01:10.480 --> 0:01:13.320
<v Speaker 1>in Supreme Court practice. I think one name that everybody

0:01:13.360 --> 0:01:16.440
<v Speaker 1>will most likely know is Chief Justice John Roberts was

0:01:16.480 --> 0:01:20.120
<v Speaker 1>one of those. But that's really different today, where most

0:01:20.360 --> 0:01:23.720
<v Speaker 1>of the litigation is handled either by attorneys at the

0:01:23.760 --> 0:01:28.640
<v Speaker 1>Solicitor General's Office or UM in some kind of Supreme

0:01:28.640 --> 0:01:31.720
<v Speaker 1>Court focus practice. And I'm not sure if that was

0:01:31.760 --> 0:01:34.280
<v Speaker 1>the point of Supreme Court practice was to kind of

0:01:34.280 --> 0:01:38.600
<v Speaker 1>counter the Solicitor General's office, but it certainly has been UM.

0:01:38.760 --> 0:01:41.640
<v Speaker 1>One of the results is that the Solicitor General's Office

0:01:41.680 --> 0:01:45.200
<v Speaker 1>hasn't done as well since these UM focused practices have

0:01:45.280 --> 0:01:48.400
<v Speaker 1>shown up, and you're seeing a trend in firm setting

0:01:48.440 --> 0:01:52.040
<v Speaker 1>up dedicated Supreme Court practices. Well we are now there

0:01:52.040 --> 0:01:54.960
<v Speaker 1>are already a lot of players UM in this space,

0:01:55.040 --> 0:01:58.480
<v Speaker 1>so the numbers are small, but they are growing. And

0:01:58.560 --> 0:02:01.440
<v Speaker 1>so just earlier this year we heard, you know, the

0:02:01.440 --> 0:02:05.080
<v Speaker 1>New York megafirm Paul weiss Uh started a Supreme Court

0:02:05.160 --> 0:02:08.400
<v Speaker 1>focus UM. So it's definitely something that's growing. Does it

0:02:08.480 --> 0:02:11.119
<v Speaker 1>seem odd that it's growing and they're setting up new

0:02:11.160 --> 0:02:14.280
<v Speaker 1>practices when there were fewer cases to sort of fight

0:02:14.360 --> 0:02:17.400
<v Speaker 1>over Since the Roberts Court is taking far less cases

0:02:17.440 --> 0:02:20.320
<v Speaker 1>than the Court used to. Well, right, And it's actually

0:02:20.400 --> 0:02:23.680
<v Speaker 1>kind of interesting that since the nineteen eighties the number

0:02:23.720 --> 0:02:25.920
<v Speaker 1>of cases that the Supreme Court has been hearing has

0:02:25.960 --> 0:02:27.880
<v Speaker 1>fallen quite a bit. It used to be somewhere around

0:02:28.040 --> 0:02:30.600
<v Speaker 1>a hundred and fifty. Last term it was closer to

0:02:30.680 --> 0:02:33.720
<v Speaker 1>seventy UM. But you know, attorneys who practiced in this

0:02:33.840 --> 0:02:36.680
<v Speaker 1>field say, that's one reason why it's important not just

0:02:36.760 --> 0:02:40.000
<v Speaker 1>to have a Supreme Court focused appellate team, but one

0:02:40.040 --> 0:02:43.200
<v Speaker 1>that focuses on the lower federal appellate courts too. So

0:02:43.440 --> 0:02:47.360
<v Speaker 1>are these practices moneymakers? Well, they can be, and I

0:02:47.400 --> 0:02:49.720
<v Speaker 1>think a big component of that is not trying just

0:02:49.880 --> 0:02:53.079
<v Speaker 1>for the small slice of Supreme Court business that there

0:02:53.200 --> 0:02:55.560
<v Speaker 1>is UM. But you know, people who practice in the

0:02:55.600 --> 0:02:58.840
<v Speaker 1>space say it can really be a compliment two affirms,

0:02:58.840 --> 0:03:02.239
<v Speaker 1>other litigation and even business activities. You know, you don't

0:03:02.280 --> 0:03:05.000
<v Speaker 1>want to turn away a client whose case you've handled

0:03:05.280 --> 0:03:08.000
<v Speaker 1>UM from the regulatory stage to trial to the pellet

0:03:08.000 --> 0:03:11.240
<v Speaker 1>courts just because you don't have the Supreme Court specialty.

0:03:11.480 --> 0:03:13.880
<v Speaker 1>You talked to Tom Golstein, who is a well known

0:03:13.919 --> 0:03:17.480
<v Speaker 1>Supreme Court practitioner, and he says, lawyers can't build as

0:03:17.480 --> 0:03:20.960
<v Speaker 1>many hours to clients with a Supreme Court case as

0:03:21.040 --> 0:03:24.320
<v Speaker 1>they would for a trial for example. Well that's right.

0:03:24.400 --> 0:03:26.359
<v Speaker 1>So you know, if you think about a trial at

0:03:26.360 --> 0:03:28.560
<v Speaker 1>a big law firm, you're gonna need a lot of

0:03:28.639 --> 0:03:30.760
<v Speaker 1>young associates to do a lot of the grunt work.

0:03:30.800 --> 0:03:33.360
<v Speaker 1>There's all these depositions to do, there's usually millions of

0:03:33.400 --> 0:03:36.880
<v Speaker 1>pages of discovery work. Um, there's lots of witnesses to prep.

0:03:37.080 --> 0:03:38.480
<v Speaker 1>But that's not going to be the case with a

0:03:38.520 --> 0:03:41.080
<v Speaker 1>Supreme Court case. And that's why, you know, they say

0:03:41.120 --> 0:03:43.960
<v Speaker 1>it's really important to get Supreme Court and a pellet

0:03:44.000 --> 0:03:47.040
<v Speaker 1>advocates involved in all stages of the litigation, including at

0:03:47.080 --> 0:03:49.440
<v Speaker 1>the at the trial phase. And does it give a

0:03:49.520 --> 0:03:54.280
<v Speaker 1>firm a sort of panache to have a Supreme Court practice? Well? Absolutely,

0:03:54.320 --> 0:03:56.640
<v Speaker 1>I mean this is really when attorneys are at the

0:03:56.640 --> 0:03:59.480
<v Speaker 1>top of their game. Um. You know, it's often the

0:03:59.520 --> 0:04:02.880
<v Speaker 1>first thing that clients UH see of your law firm.

0:04:03.160 --> 0:04:06.280
<v Speaker 1>It involves really high stakes and high profile issues. But

0:04:06.680 --> 0:04:10.440
<v Speaker 1>beyond clients, it's really important for getting the really top talent.

0:04:10.800 --> 0:04:14.120
<v Speaker 1>If somebody is looking for the opportunity to work on appeals,

0:04:14.720 --> 0:04:17.640
<v Speaker 1>having a Supreme Court practice is you know, something that

0:04:17.800 --> 0:04:19.880
<v Speaker 1>was really attracted some of the cream of the crop.

0:04:20.400 --> 0:04:23.839
<v Speaker 1>This term, just five private Washington attorneys argued in a

0:04:23.960 --> 0:04:26.880
<v Speaker 1>quarter of the Supreme Courts cases. And the justices know

0:04:27.040 --> 0:04:30.120
<v Speaker 1>their names. And what kind of an advantage does it

0:04:30.279 --> 0:04:34.560
<v Speaker 1>give them knowing the justices and the justices knowing them, Well,

0:04:34.640 --> 0:04:37.080
<v Speaker 1>it gives them a really big advantage. Not you know,

0:04:37.160 --> 0:04:40.360
<v Speaker 1>most obviously, I think in the arguments they know these

0:04:40.400 --> 0:04:42.960
<v Speaker 1>justices and what kinds of questions they want to ask,

0:04:43.120 --> 0:04:45.640
<v Speaker 1>and they know that the justices are looking beyond just

0:04:45.760 --> 0:04:48.800
<v Speaker 1>this particular case and can provide them with broader answers.

0:04:49.080 --> 0:04:51.880
<v Speaker 1>But we see even in the outcome of the cases um.

0:04:51.880 --> 0:04:54.240
<v Speaker 1>There was a recent study that showed that Supreme Court

0:04:54.560 --> 0:04:58.280
<v Speaker 1>um experts actually have a better record UM than individuals

0:04:58.279 --> 0:05:00.480
<v Speaker 1>who are practicing just their first or second time before

0:05:00.480 --> 0:05:05.960
<v Speaker 1>the justices. This term, only seventeen percent of Supreme Court

0:05:06.000 --> 0:05:10.080
<v Speaker 1>cases were argued by women. Are any of the firm's

0:05:10.160 --> 0:05:14.000
<v Speaker 1>addressing that lack of gender diversity among the advocates at

0:05:14.000 --> 0:05:17.640
<v Speaker 1>the court? Well, you know, the lack of diversity is

0:05:17.680 --> 0:05:20.200
<v Speaker 1>not just a problem with advocates before the Supreme Court,

0:05:20.240 --> 0:05:24.560
<v Speaker 1>but it really um infects the entire um Judiciary and

0:05:24.720 --> 0:05:27.680
<v Speaker 1>the you know, the the law um as a whole.

0:05:27.760 --> 0:05:30.479
<v Speaker 1>And so we see the issue with law firms trying

0:05:30.520 --> 0:05:34.240
<v Speaker 1>to hold onto female associates UM at the partnership and

0:05:34.240 --> 0:05:36.800
<v Speaker 1>we even see it UM in the Federal judiciary. Just

0:05:36.880 --> 0:05:39.960
<v Speaker 1>a third of the judges in the Federal Judiciary are

0:05:40.040 --> 0:05:43.279
<v Speaker 1>women UM. And that's really just looking at one angle

0:05:43.440 --> 0:05:45.200
<v Speaker 1>of diversity. There are a lot of other angles of

0:05:45.240 --> 0:05:48.039
<v Speaker 1>diversity that we're not even touching upon. So it's a

0:05:48.080 --> 0:05:51.039
<v Speaker 1>problem that firms are trying to address UM. But whether

0:05:51.080 --> 0:05:53.719
<v Speaker 1>they're there will be successful in the future remains to

0:05:53.760 --> 0:05:57.440
<v Speaker 1>be seen. They certainly haven't been so yet. And Kimberly,

0:05:57.720 --> 0:06:00.400
<v Speaker 1>is it possible for a boutique law for arm to

0:06:00.480 --> 0:06:03.040
<v Speaker 1>handle a lot of Supreme Court cases or are they

0:06:03.080 --> 0:06:06.440
<v Speaker 1>reserved for these big law firms. What we see the

0:06:06.480 --> 0:06:09.840
<v Speaker 1>Supreme Court focus UM expanding to really all sizes of

0:06:09.920 --> 0:06:12.479
<v Speaker 1>law firms, you know, from the big Paul Weiss of

0:06:12.520 --> 0:06:14.520
<v Speaker 1>the world that I talked about earlier that are really

0:06:14.520 --> 0:06:18.000
<v Speaker 1>a mega firm UM to the solo practitioners. There's one

0:06:18.360 --> 0:06:21.200
<v Speaker 1>UM new solo practitioner on the beat who has gotten

0:06:21.200 --> 0:06:25.000
<v Speaker 1>three of the courts seventy arguments just a few terms ago,

0:06:25.080 --> 0:06:27.280
<v Speaker 1>which is a really big chunk of the work. And

0:06:27.320 --> 0:06:29.640
<v Speaker 1>so you know, a lot of advocates I spoke to

0:06:29.880 --> 0:06:32.040
<v Speaker 1>UM who work at these smaller firms say it can

0:06:32.120 --> 0:06:35.200
<v Speaker 1>really be perfect for a smaller firm, especially UM, a

0:06:35.200 --> 0:06:37.520
<v Speaker 1>bookish attorney who doesn't want to be around a lot

0:06:37.520 --> 0:06:40.800
<v Speaker 1>of other people. Thanks so much for joining us. Kimberly.

0:06:41.200 --> 0:06:47.359
<v Speaker 1>That's Kimberly Strawbridge Robinson, Bloomberg Supreme Court Reporter. Thanks for

0:06:47.440 --> 0:06:50.680
<v Speaker 1>listening to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can subscribe and

0:06:50.760 --> 0:06:54.000
<v Speaker 1>listen to the show on Apple Podcast, SoundCloud and on

0:06:54.040 --> 0:06:58.800
<v Speaker 1>Bloomberg dot com slash podcast. I'm June Basso. This is

0:06:58.839 --> 0:07:03.000
<v Speaker 1>Bloomberg given the patent to the end the end of

0:07:03.120 --> 0:07:03.960
<v Speaker 1>compe