Is the opportunity for young lawyers to step up to the plate in the courtroom getting smaller?  Where work load is decreasing and the population of lawyers continues to grow, are senior lawyers pinch hitting for the whole team?  That’s what a magistrate judge implied in a series of orders in a Northern District of California case last month.

Magistrate Paul S. Grewal responded to the parties’ motions for oral argument on six post-trial motions in a complicated IP litigation matter by granting the motions for oral argument on the condition that the each party would allow at least two of the six motions to be argued by associates.  The Court stated in its March 9, 2016 Order:

This case offers this member of the bench a chance to start doing his small part [to promote courtroom opportunities for less experienced lawyers]. In a jury trial lasting several weeks, the court was privileged to witness some of the finest senior trial counsel anywhere present each opening statement, each direct and cross-examination and each closing argument. The court intends no criticism of any party’s staffing decisions. But with no fewer than six post-trial motions set for argument next week, surely an opportunity can be made to give those associates that contributed mightily to this difficult case a chance to step out of the shadows and into the light.

Surely the associates reveled in the idea of relief pitching for their bosses, especially after the months of preparation for the trial.  However, the major leaguers decided to play hard ball.  Instead of designating two motions for the associates to argue, the parties jointly decided to withdraw the request for oral arguments, in their entirety.  A swing and a miss for the associates.

But, it ain’t over till it’s over.  Magistrate Grewal responded with a disappointed reproach to the refusal to allow the associates to play ball.

But I would be remiss if I did not observe the irony of another missed opportunity to invest in our profession’s future when two of the motions originally noticed for hearing seek massive fees and costs. To be clear, GSI asks for $6,810,686.69 in attorney’s fees, $1,828,553.07 in non-taxable costs and $337,300.86 in taxable costs, while UMI asks for $6,694,562 in attorney’s fees, $648,166 in expenses and $302,579.70 in taxable costs.  That a few more dollars could not be spent is disappointing to me. My disappointment, however, is unlikely to compare to the disappointment of the associates, who were deprived yet again of an opportunity to argue in court.

So, is it a whole new ball game? Are the already rare opportunities for young lawyers to argue in court being monopolized by senior lawyers?  If so, whose responsibility is it to increase young lawyer presence in the courtroom?  If young lawyers should expect to ride the pine longer, what is the cause?  Those questions are yet to be answered, but in the meantime, we think Magistrate Grewal really hit it out of the park on this one.

The Magistrate’s original order can be found at:  https://www.scribd.com/doc/304652302/GSI-Order.

The Magistrate’s response to the parties’ decision to forego oral argument can be found at https://www.scribd.com/doc/305004662/Update-Order.

 Jen Smith is a Partner at the law firm of Southern Trial Counsel | PLC and is serving her first term as 9^th Circuit YLD Governor.  Jen has no understanding of baseball (clearly).