| "Detail Work of the New
York Court of Appeals" |
|
The Court of Appeals is a work-shop and no man would be happy there who did not find his chief enjoyment and satisfaction in the work. It takes some time for one to break into this routine, but, like everything else, when once the habit is formed, the judge does not find it so hard, after all. What the Court of Appeals would do under the N. R. A. and the standard hours of work is beyond me. I can say without exaggeration, choosing well my words, that I have known some judges of my court to have worked day in and day out from eight o'clock in the morning until ten or eleven at night, time being taken out for meals only. What I have here stated applies to the sessions of the court. We have Saturdays and Sundays for reviewing the work more leisurely and the recesses in which to write our opinions at home or in our chambers at home. I do not want you to get the impression, however, that every case is decided within a day or two after argument. This, you know, would be impossible. I may say that the vast majority of cases are so disposed of, but the harder ones needing further study and reflection are passed on from day to day or week to week until the judges are ready to make a decision. Some cases have been held as long as four or five months, but I think you will bear me out—at least those of you familiar with our work—that as a rule our decisions are handed down within two to four weeks after argument. A very learned and able lawyer was once arguing a case in the Court of Appeals. After listening patiently for nearly an hour without interruption, the Chief Judge turned to his opponent and said, "Would you mind telling us what this case is about?" Not one of us had been able to gather the facts of the case from the appellant's counsel. Now this is due in part to the over-emphasis which is placed upon the decisions and upon the law, by the training of our young men in the law schools, and of their brief-writing in the offices. Many a man will begin to talk about the cases and the mistakes in the rulings of the lower court and the distinction to be drawn in the decisions without having said one word about the facts of the case he was arguing. Many a brief I have read with perplexity and doubt to find the seventh or eighth point headed, "Now we come to the facts." One reason why newspaper reporters and those trained in journalism have generally made such good lawyers and judges is because of their ability to state the facts, paint the picture, make others see what they have seen, to pick out the material and vital point, leaving something to the imagination. A man who has to write for his bread and butter or address a jury, as did Lord Erskine, to get the weekly rent, very soon makes others understand what he has to say. Would that the lawyers who appear in my court had some such training. Eloquence. fire, vigor, learning, decisions never have the importance of a single, vital fact. Disraeli once said : "Events are terrible things." Events are facts, and they play havoc with the fine law brief of many a learned lawyer. "Give us briefly and clearly the facts," should be the words ringing in the ears of every advocate appearing before an appellate court This sounds easy but try it, see how clearly and concisely you can state the events of a single day or the items of a single incident without interpolating or wandering or digressing into immaterial matters. Lord MacMillan, in his address before the American Bar Association in Chicago, "Law and Letters," in 1930, closed his address with these words: "Clear thinking always means clear writing, and clear writing is always good writing." Mind you, I do not mean that the facts should be elaborated upon or given in too much detail—I do mean that the facts of the case should be thoroughly studied and digested and then boiled down to a clear and concise statement or outline of the matter in hand. |
 The Historical Society of the Courts of the State of New York |
