The phrase “120 Seconds Question-Free: Litigators Split Over Appellate Oral Argument Format” appears to be a headline or subtitle from a recent legal news article published on August 14, 2025, in the Daily Report (part of Law.com), focusing on a pilot program in the Georgia Supreme Court. This program, which began testing on April 16, 2025, introduces an optional change to oral argument procedures, allowing attorneys two minutes (120 seconds) of uninterrupted speaking time at the beginning of their presentations before judges can interject with questions. The format is modeled after a similar hybrid approach adopted by the U.S. Supreme Court post-COVID, aiming to balance structured openings with interactive questioning.
Details of the Format Change
- How it works: Attorneys can elect to use the two-minute uninterrupted period to deliver an opening overview, set the tone for their case, and highlight key points without judicial interruptions. After this window, the argument proceeds with the standard question-and-answer dynamic. The total argument time remains unchanged (typically 20-30 minutes per side, depending on the case), and the option is available to both appellants and appellees.
- Jurisdiction and implementation: This is a pilot initiative specific to the Georgia Supreme Court, not a statewide mandate for all appellate courts. It’s designed to be flexible, with lawyers notifying the court in advance if they wish to opt in. The change does not apply to motions or other non-argument proceedings.
- Purpose: The goal is to enhance predictability in oral arguments, particularly for less experienced advocates, while ensuring justices receive a cohesive summary of the arguments upfront. This allows for more targeted questions later and prevents arguments from derailing into narrow issues right away.
The Split Among Litigators: Pros and Cons
Litigators in Georgia are divided on the value of this format, as highlighted in the August 2025 Law.com article and earlier coverage from legal firms like Freeman Mathis & Gary and Butler Weihmuller Katz Craig. The debate centers on whether the change improves advocacy or disrupts the traditional “hot bench” style where judges engage immediately. Below is a breakdown based on reported opinions:
Pros
- Increased predictability and preparation: Advocates argue it gives lawyers—especially younger or first-time appellate attorneys—a structured opportunity to present their strongest points without immediate disruption. Michael Terry, a partner at Butler Weihmuller Katz Craig, noted that “the format adds predictability,” allowing for better case framing.
- Benefits for clients and newer lawyers: Naveen Ramachandrappa, another partner at the same firm, emphasized its advantages for those unfamiliar with appellate processes, stating it helps “make clients feel their case is better heard” by ensuring their lawyer can speak uninterrupted. The Freeman Mathis & Gary article similarly describes it as “helpful for younger lawyers arguing for the first time,” providing a chance to “set the tone and provide an overview of their main points.”
- Mutual benefits for justices: Proponents suggest it aids judges by offering a full argument overview upfront, enabling more effective questioning in the remaining time. This mirrors feedback from the U.S. Supreme Court’s similar rule, where it has been praised for improving argument flow.
- Overall improvement in clarity and persuasion: It encourages concise, impactful openings, potentially elevating the quality of advocacy without extending total argument time.
Cons
- Potential reduction in interactivity: Critics worry it delays critical judicial engagement, limiting the ability to address judges’ concerns early and gauge the bench’s leanings. In traditional formats, immediate questions can clarify ambiguities quickly, and some litigators view the uninterrupted period as an artificial barrier that might make arguments feel scripted or less responsive.
- Limited necessity for experienced advocates: Seasoned appellate lawyers may see little value, preferring the dynamic back-and-forth that tests arguments in real-time. The Freeman Mathis & Gary piece notes that “not every advocate may choose to use this new procedure,” implying varied reactions and potential underutilization if it feels unnecessary. Broader appellate practice discussions (e.g., on platforms like Reddit) echo this, with some clerks and lawyers arguing oral arguments are most effective when highly interactive from the start, potentially changing outcomes in 20% of cases through clarifications.
- Risk of uneven application: There’s concern that opting in could signal weakness (e.g., inexperience), or that it might not suit complex cases where judges prefer to probe key issues immediately. No specific statistics on adoption rates are available yet, but the pilot’s optional nature suggests ongoing evaluation.
- Broader skepticism on impact: Some view it as a minor tweak that doesn’t address deeper issues in appellate practice, like declining oral argument grants in other courts. Reactions “may vary,” as one analysis put it, with potential for it to feel gimmicky if not embraced widely.
Broader Implications
This pilot reflects a national trend toward hybrid oral argument formats, influenced by the U.S. Supreme Court’s post-pandemic adjustments, where uninterrupted openings have been credited with making arguments more thorough (e.g., extended sessions in high-profile cases like the Affordable Care Act challenges). In Georgia, it could democratize appellate advocacy by supporting diverse litigators, but its success depends on feedback during the trial period. If adopted permanently, it might inspire similar changes in other state courts, emphasizing preparation of strong, concise openings. For now, the split underscores a tension between structure and spontaneity in legal arguments, with the program’s future likely hinging on litigator and judicial input. If you’re referring to a specific aspect of the debate or need more on related cases, provide additional details!