Various trial court rulings are subject to differing standards by which they are reviewed. Appellate counsel s familiarity and understanding of the applicable standards of review can often spell the difference between a successful and a wasted appellate effort. Appellate counsel has a greater sense of those issues most likely to succeed on appeal. Appellate practitioners are regularly researching and studying the published opinions of the appellate courts. As a result, they are familiar with not only the most recent case law, but also those issues which are most likely to pique the appellate court's interest and consequently persuade the court to rule in the desired direction.
Appellate counsel views the case from the same perspective as the appellate court.
Because the appellate attorney has not participated in the trial court proceedings, appellate counsel evaluates the case from the same vantage point as the court of appeal through the record. This is a significant advantage, because unlike trial counsel whose broad knowledge of the facts may tempt him to argue beyond the scope of the record, appellate counsel naturally and properly focuses his arguments on those which are contained in, and supported by, the record. The result is a concise, well-reasoned brief concentrated on pertinent legal issues instead of one laced with extraneous and inappropriate references to matters outside the appellate record. Appellate counsel s style of oral argument has been refined to respond to the more intellectual and scholarly temperament of appellate jurists. Argument before an appellate court is not the same as argument before a jury.