This seems like some unfair framing regarding oral arg/prep in WI partisan gerrymandering casehttps://apnews.com/ba4d978ca53f445cb6ddebe24b4ca3c1 …
-
-
Replying to @rickhasen
I mean, just based on the title, that is an incredible bargain. Oral argument prep is expensive. Supreme Court oral argument prep is very expensive.
2 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @Jaime_ASantos @rickhasen
Just the argument, for a public client? (The briefing was billed separately.)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @PeterOrlowicz @rickhasen
Absolutely, particularly if you consider moots (including time for moot judges to prep and participate in the moots). To be sure, some clients may be able to strike better deals in some cases, but that amount does not seem at all disproportionate to me.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Jaime_ASantos
and you are talking about one of the top appellate litigators---where there is a premium on being known and respected by the Justices
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @rickhasen
And in a case that might not be all that likely to induce firms to strike a really cheap bargain. Redistricting stuff is super political.
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Jaime_ASantos @rickhasen
Peter Orlowicz Retweeted Peter Orlowicz
Peter Orlowicz added,
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @PeterOrlowicz @rickhasen
This seems like a fair critique to me. I think it's completely fair (and often smart) for a state AG to hire private Supreme Court counsel for a really big case. But for a legislature to hire additional counsel beyond the AG at taxpayer expense-I could see that being troubling
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
agree that is a real question about hiring outside counsel in this context. But to say, as the article is framed--how could you pay outside counsel $60K for 10 minutes of Supreme court oral argument?--is flatly wrong.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.