Quote:
Originally Posted by simplicitus
Interesting comments about Alsup, would appreciate a bit more detail on what you learned. I haven't had a case before him, but I know he's respected.
I'll be filing a computer-related copyright case next week and plan to do so in the NDCA, though it could also be brought in the CDCA. I think the NDCA has a stronger rep. for cases involving technology, though there are some good judges in the CDCA (and some NDCA judges are better than others). I think a default assumption in the NDCA is that judges should not be afraid of technology, and sometimes have to get into the details as part of the job. Not sure that's true in most other districts.
Moderate derail:
Judge Alsup tends to arrive at the Courthouse sometime around 5:00 AM, and frequently demands additional briefing be submitted prior to 5:00 or 6:00 PM on the same trial day on which the briefing is requested. He usually holds argument before trial from approximately 7:00 or 7:30 AM - don't remember which, but early - until the issues are handled. This gives the issues the time they deserve before trial begins for the day.
He will have read all briefing and all relevant cases. He knows the cases cold. Every time I relied upon a case or statute I knew that if I was incorrect about a holding or fact, he'd catch it. This forced me to prove to myself that I could not make such a mistake before these arguments took place - which in turn forced me to basically not sleep for most of 2 weeks. I will say, in general, that my opponent did not so thoroughly master the material and got excoriated for it, repeatedly, while I enjoyed what seemed to be a massive credibility advantage.
He does not need long explanation or argument by analogy - I'm not sure any Judge really does, to be fair. What I learned, and alluded to above, is what one can learn from reps at the highest level. For two weeks, he kept me on my toes and eager to be perfect, because that is what it took to match his preparation and mind. I believe my practice has been benefited and elevated through that experience - I've now observed, and participated for a short but significant time in, the highest levels of legal argument and persuasive argument, before an audience smarter and more experienced than me, and at least equally as well prepared as me, and to be blunt I've not encountered that intimidating combination in any other courtroom in my life.
You can't argue well in that circumstance without forcing yourself to understand everything about your case, perfectly, or without anticipating the weaknesses you will need to address credibly. I don't know that I would have tried earlier cases in my career the way that I did if I had earlier had this experience, and that's due to the benefits of the experience in Judge Alsup's courtroom. It was a privilege, what else can really be said?
He also has a very cool habit of strongly encouraging, if not outright ordering, that young attorneys handle pieces of cases. He is committed to the growth of young attorneys, something that is a SHOCKING rarity on the bench and in the practice of law in large, middle, and boutique firms.
My advice to you is that if your case is strong and legally well-founded, you will prosper in his Court. If not, he will figure it out, and you will suffer for it.
EDIT: And, I must add, I would pity the plaintiff's attorney who brought a borderline-extortionate claim and lacked the wisdom to settle before Judge Alsup had the chance to express in open Court how problematic the claim really is.