"We . . . observe that trial attorneys who prosecute their own appeals, such as appellant, may have 'tunnel vision.' Having tried the case themselves, they become convinced of the merits of their cause. They may lose objectivity and would be well served by consulting and taking the advice of disinterested members of the bar, schooled in appellate practice." (Estate of Gilkison (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 1443, 1449-1450.)

In addition to his experience clerking for an appellate court judge seeing how judges "really" decide cases behind closed doors, Lawrence Page has successfully argued dozens of appeals in intermediate appellate and state supreme courts.

Potential clients sometimes ask why they should retain an appellate attorney when their trial counsel is already familiar with the case. The following provides some insight on the wisdom of hiring separate appellate counsel.

1. "We aren't in trial anymore;" appellate advocacy requires significantly different skills than trial court advocacy.

Just as trial law involves its own blend of special skills, appellate advocacy involves skills that are neither common nor even desired by many attorneys. First and foremost, the sheer number of pending cases mandates that most appeals are basically decided on the briefs. Trial lawyers often have despised legal research and writing since law school and always yearned for a venue where their "man of the people" communication and advocacy skills can work to their advantage. The very same "man of the people" skills that can make a great trial lawyer can often handicap an appellate advocate.

Whereas good trial lawyers hone their skills on ferreting out information through discovery, examining witnesses, and making spontaneous tactical decisions in court, an appellate lawyer must accept the record as it stands and focus upon effective legal research and persuasive writing. On appeal, the focus shifts from developing and knowing the facts to mastering the record; from a general grasp of points of law to extensively researching legal principles; from a command of evidentiary rules to a profound understanding of the appellate standards of review; from developing a persuasive, primarily-oral, evidentiary trial presentation to assembling everything in a concise, persuasively-written brief.

2. An appellate advocate views the case from a fresh, objective perspective, just like the Appellate Court.

Appellate counsel brings a fresh perspective to the case because their knowledge of the case comes primarily from the record on appeal. Instead of strategizing about what facts outside of the record need to go into evidence, an appellate advocate avoids the temptation to strategize about the case based on what could have, should have, but was not introduced at trial. As a result, they view the case in the same light as the Court of Appeal, which decides cases based solely upon what is in the record, not facts or arguments that "might have been" presented in the trial court. As one appellate court recently explained, "Appellate work is most assuredly not the recycling of trial level points and authorities. * * * [The] appellate practitioner who takes trial level points and authorities and, without reconsideration or additional research, merely shovels them in to an appellate brief, is producing a substandard product." (In re Marriage of Shaban (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 398, 408, 410)

Furthermore, just as trial attorneys tend to know what persuades juries, appellate attorneys know what persuades appellate courts. Appellate attorneys often are more familiar with what issues and arguments are likely to succeed on appeal. They also often know the peculiar characteristics of different panels of justices, and how decisions are made at the appellate level.

3. Oral advocacy differs significantly at the appellate level.

Although not always required, oral argument provides the only opportunity during an appeal for a dialogue between the parties and the justices. However, an effective jury argument rarely succeeds in the Court of Appeal. As Chief Justice Ronald George of the California Supreme Court has commented: "[E]motional arguments of the type designed to sway a jury generally leave us quite cold, so does the sight of counsel approaching the bench, clutching a script from which counsel does not dare to look up." (Sherman, Chief Justice of California (2d Qtr. 1997) Verdict 8, 12.)

4. Trial attorneys do not know appellate procedure.

Substantially different procedural rules and deadlines apply on appeal. Not surprisingly, a significant number of appeals are dismissed because counsel did not know these special rules and procedures. Retaining competent appellate counsel will help to avoid potentially disastrous procedural mistakes at the appellate level.

5. Appellate attorneys present more efficient, cost-effective appeals.

Appellate specialists can efficiently deliver appellate expertise at the lowest possible cost to their clients. We achieve these cost-effective results in each case by drawing upon varied expertise in developing and presenting arguments, knowledge of both the rules governing appellate procedure and the applicable standards of review, and brief banks of research from decades of past appeals in both state and federal courts.