The Supreme Thrill

 

The actual time spent in the impressive courtroom may whiz by, but the satisfaction of reaching a career milestone persists long after the big moment has passed. Even when the majority opinion doesn’t go their way, as is the case with two of the three following Tulsa attorneys, lawyers find the Supreme Court experience to be personally fulfilling. Here’s why.

 

 

James C. Lang remembers his experience in 1992 as “up close and personal” with the justices. Prior to his appearance before the Court, he had heard that the oral arguments would be more of a conversation with the justices than a presentation of facts. That proved to be true.

 

“I really felt very comfortable before the Supreme Court,” recalls Lang, a founding member of Sneed Lang. “You’re much closer to the bench than you are in most courts of appeal. It’s a bit unusual. There are nine people in front of you. You have to be prepared for questions from any of the nine. Being so close, you’re moving your head back and forth listening to questions.”

 

In his 42 years as an attorney, he has argued before different courts of appeal throughout the United States. A lot of times, he says, the Circuit Court judges play the devil’s advocate — building up one side of the case when in fact they might be leaning toward the other side. With the Supreme Court justices, it’s much easier to tell from the tenor of their questions which justices are for you or against you, says Lang.

 

In his Supreme Court case — United States v. Williams — the issue was whether the government prosecutor had an obligation to present to the grand jury evidence tending to prove the defendant’s innocence. “We won at the district court level and won at the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. We lost five to four in the Supreme Court case.” The majority opinion, which was written by Justice Antonin Scalia, held that the government prosecutor did not have the duty to present exculpatory evidence. Justice John Paul Stevens wrote the dissenting opinion. “Justice Scalia asked the hardest questions. I thought he would have ruled in favor of the government just by virtue of his questions,” says Lang, who also could tell from Justice Stevens’ questions that Stevens would rule in his side’s favor.

 

Preparation for the oral arguments is similar whether it’s for a circuit court or the Supreme Court. “You review cases and briefs, anticipate questions you will be asked. The United States Supreme Court justices ask more questions and more incisive questions if for no other reason than there are six more of them than on the circuit court.”

 

He had an adrenaline-filled half-hour to make his case before the justices. Afterward, “I was pleased with the questions and my ability to answer them.” Still, he says, “It was nice to have it over with because there’s so much time spent preparing. It’s a highstress 30 minutes in front of such an august body.”