Do you or a loved one have a lawsuit you`d like to appeal? If so, call the office or contact us today at the appellate law firm to arrange a free consultation on your case and learn more about how you can increase your chances of success in your appeal process. When the court of first instance decides, everything changes. The case is then brought before a panel of appellate judges – for whom the trial court`s conclusion on the facts is usually the only one that matters – and the battlefield shifts to whether the trial court correctly applied the law. The Court of Appeal makes this decision on the basis of a written record of the main proceedings, the strength of certain pleadings and at most a short hearing – sometimes none. Another type of oral advocacy. Appellate judges often point out that litigators who appear before them cannot shake their “jury” presentation style. Appellate lawyers understand the completely different approach required in this new forum – where fundamental issues are legal, not factual, and where 10 to 30 minutes of personal and oral advocacy per page is the norm. If you appeal, the Court of Appeal will review the case file of the court of first instance to determine whether an error of law was made before the court of first instance that changed the outcome of the case. In addition to their practice in the courts of appeal, appellate lawyers play an important role in the courts of first instance. Appellate counsel work with the litigator on strategic and tactical issues to present all applicable arguments and create the appropriate trial record, identify and preserve legal issues as they arise, and prepare effective motions on substantive legal issues – before, during and after the trial.
A new perspective. An appellate lawyer objectively assesses the case based on these new realities and helps the parties see the case as the Court of Appeal is likely to see it. Appellate counsel focuses on legal and procedural issues, as courts of appeal do; Findings of fact will almost never be verified again. The key issues in the appeal are often different from those that prevailed at trial. [A]ppellate practice involves rigorously original work in its own right. The [lawyer] who takes points and powers at the trial level and shovels them into an appeal brief without reconsideration or further research produces an inferior product. Because appellate courts know that experienced appellate practitioners speak their language and understand their decision-making process, these lawyers can gain the trust of the courts in ways that litigants rarely can. As one California court of appeals put it: A thorough understanding of the appeal process. Experienced appellate lawyers know how evaluation courts work and guide clients (and litigants) through this new terrain.
The focus is on evidentiary issues at the trial level to move towards a new framework: can the judgment be appealed? What standards of review will the court apply and how do these standards affect the soundness of the client`s potential arguments? Were there any errors made by the trial courts that were retained for the appeal? Which topics are important and winnable, and which will only fill out the letter? Could this case shape the law, and if so, how? All lawyers who make their own appeal, such as the plaintiff, can have a “tunnel vision”. After negotiating the case themselves, they are convinced of the merits of their case. They may lose their objectivity and would be well served if they consulted and followed the advice of non-interested members of the Bar Association trained in the practice of appeals. We suspect that if the complainant had done so, he would have advised him not to pursue this appeal. If you are appealing because you believe that the trial court`s decision is not supported by substantive evidence, the Court of Appeal will use the standard of substantial evidence. The Court of Appeal reviews the records to ensure that there is substantial evidence that adequately supports the trial court`s decision. The task of the Court of Appeal is not to decide whether the same factual conclusions would have been drawn as the judge or jury. The Court of Appeal simply decides whether a reasonable investigator could have reached the same conclusion based on the facts of the case. If there is a conflict in the evidence and a reasonable investigator could have resolved the conflict in some way, the Court of Appeal will not overturn the trial court`s decision. Because the judge or jury of the trial saw the witnesses and heard what the witnesses were saying, they were in a better position to decide what really happened and who was telling the truth. Keep in mind that the Court of Appeal will not consider new evidence.
An appeal is not a new procedure. You can`t appeal a court`s decision just because you don`t like it. There must be a valid reason for your call. Some people want to appeal simply because they are angry with the judge or the other party. But appeals and prosecutions are very serious, and the court can punish people who bring “frivolous” lawsuits (lawsuits that are not based on a valid reason). If you take a civil or criminal case to court and get an adverse outcome, you still have legal options to review your claims. The right of appeal is the process of appealing a judgment that is unfavourable to you in the chain of review tribunals, but differs considerably from the courts of first instance. If you want to appeal a decision, hiring an experienced appellate lawyer is your best chance of success. At The Appellate Law Firm, our work focuses solely on appointments. For advice on your case and to learn more about the right of appeal, call or contact the office today. The practice of appointment involves different skills and strategic considerations than the practice of trial. On appeal, the focus shifts from the development and proof of the facts (through discovery, witness hearing and trial) to the legal issues that decide the case.
Effective appellate representation therefore requires a formulation of questions that focuses on what is important to a panel of appellate judges deciding the case. In formulating questions on appeal, an appellate counsel conducts extensive legal research; analyses legal issues in light of the regulatory and policy considerations that shape the evolution of the law; and then concisely presents the facts, issues and arguments selected for the appeal in a compelling appeal brief. The importance of a well-written appeal brief cannot be overemphasized. Appeals are examined more by the judiciary than by written documents produced at trial, as they are examined by a panel of judges and not by a single judge, together with the larger legal staff of these judges, under comparatively less time pressure than in the court of first instance. As one court of appeal stated, appellate work is “certainly not the recycling of points and authorities at the process level,” but rather “involves rigorous original work in itself,” and probably offers the lawyer the best opportunity to create works of original, professional, and sometimes literary value. 88 Cal. App. 4. 398, 408-10 (2001). We will carefully review each step of your case at the trial level, from pre-trial motions to jury testimony and post-trial motions, to determine the most effective legal strategy for your success on appeal. In addition to working directly with clients, we are available to work with litigants who wish to remain involved in appellate litigation.
If you (the complainant) argue that the trial court erred in law, the Court of Appeal will first consider what the standard of review is for the particular type of decision in your court case. An appeal may be lodged against a judgment of a bankruptcy judge. However, several courts of appeal have established a bankruptcy appeal body composed of three bankruptcy judges to hear appeals filed directly by the bankruptcy courts. In both cases, the losing party in the first bankruptcy appeal can then appeal to the Court of Appeal. In almost all cases, the Court of Appeal considers ONLY two things: De novo is a Latin expression that means “from the beginning.” In the de novo review, the Court of Appeal does not comply with the decisions of the Court of First Instance and considers the matter as if the Court of First Instance had never ruled on the matter. This type of review is usually limited to legal issues. When it comes to questions of law – such as the interpretation of a contract or a law – the Court of Appeal does not presume that the decision of the court of first instance is correct, but considers the issue from the outset (de novo) and exercises its independent judgment. But this type of review is still not a new procedure because the Court of Appeal does not examine the new evidence and bases its examination on the evidence contained in the minutes of the Court of First Instance.