U.S. Supreme Court
‘Defiant’ Lawyer Tussles for Chance to Argue Supreme Court Case
Posted Oct 9, 2008, 12:06 pm CST
By Debra Cassens Weiss
A fight has broken out over which lawyer may represent Rhode Island and one of its towns in a U.S. Supreme Court case asserting the right to convert a parcel of land into a federal trust for an Indian tribe.
The lawyer for the town, Joseph Larisa Jr., says he has handled the case for 10 years and he should get to argue it, reports The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times. But Rhode Island’s governor and attorney general say former solicitor general Ted Olson, hired for $200,000, should handle the case, according to a Providence Journal story quoted on the BLT blog.
The Supreme Court has refused to allow divided argument time in the case.
Larisa has proposed a coin toss to settle the question, but the governor’s office suggests two coin tosses—the first between Larisa and the governor’s office, and if Larisa wins, a second between him and the attorney general’s office. Larisa told The BLT he doesn’t like those odds. He also proposes moot court arguments before a neutral panel of judges who decide the best lawyer for the job.
Meanwhile state attorney general spokesman Michael Healey rejected any kind of coin toss at all. He told the Providence Journal that the controversy was all due to “Joe Larisa’s ego, which is astounding.” He also said Larisa was acting like an “oppositional, defiant toddler."
Related Stories
- There were not related articles.
Related Topics
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.
Comments
Posted by Associate - 1 month, 1 week, 6 days, 8 hours, 55 minutes ago
The guy has handled the case for 10 years, he knows it inside out - to the very last detail. The former soclitor general may be a good oral advocate given his experience, but that does not mean he knows the case to the level that he will need to know in order to be able to competently and passionately argue it before SCOTUS. Larisa should totally argue this one!
Posted by Another associate - 1 month, 1 week, 5 days, 15 hours, 25 minutes ago
Ted Olson argued his 50th case at the Supreme Court this year. It’s always good to know the ins and outs of the record, but it’s even more important to know that the case looks very different when it reaches the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is generally more interested in resolving a single legal question and on the effects its decision will have on other cases. Being able to argue “passionately” isn’t always a plus. Being able to argue “competently” before the Supreme Court is something that Ted Olson can do better than just about anyone else.
It can feel like a slap in the face to have “your” case taken away from you once it gets to the Supreme Court, but you have to remember, it’s not really about you.
Posted by jbolaw - 1 month, 1 week, 5 days, 2 hours, 1 minute ago
Mr. Larisa will have every opportunity to provide Mr. Olson with all the information necessary to his argument. Mr. Larisa should dampen his ego and accept the fact that top notch pinch hitters are a common practice when the game is on the line. Go back to the dugout, Joe, and cheer for Mr. Olson, who, by the way, already has been paid $200 K by the State of Rhode Island, which clearly wants to win this case.
Posted by Simple RIer - 1 month, 1 week, 1 day, 7 hours, 25 minutes ago
Wasn’t it awfully clever to hire a new attorney for $200K and then find out he might not necessarily argue the case? Whoops.