Source: https://marygsykes.com/2018/08/02/from-sb-vr-ten-tips-on-writing-appellate-briefs-in-illinois/
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 11:11:29+00:00

Document:
The success of many, if not most, appeals rises and falls on the standard of review. Yet many practitioners fail to adequately develop an argument for the standard that best serves their appeal, while others entirely fail to identify an appropriate standard.
Identifying the appropriate standard of review should be a practitioner’s first task, and it should be considered before the notice of appeal is even filed. Most reversals occur on questions of law that are reviewed de novo, meaning no deference is given to the trial court’s ruling.
A prospective appellant who cannot persuasively argue that de novo review is appropriate might want to reconsider the appeal. Other standards of review, such as “clearly erroneous,” “abuse of discretion,” or “contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence” are more difficult for an appellant because they trigger deference to the trial judge. Trial judges are rarely found to have abused their discretion, and findings of fact are seldom contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence.
Conversely, an appellee should always push hard for a standard of review that defers to a trial judge’s ruling. This is especially true when the trial judge makes credibility determinations or other factual findings that are not typically overturned.
Finally, remember that an appeal with multiple issues might involve multiple standards of review. Thus, if a favorable standard of review cannot be established for the case as a whole, consider whether a favorable standard applies for particular issues.
Similar concerns apply to petitions for leave to appeal (PLAs) filed with the Illinois Supreme Court. Of the thousands of PLAs filed every year, the ones most commonly accepted involve de novo review. Specifically, the Illinois Supreme Court is primarily interested in issues of great legal importance, cases involving a conflict between appellate panels, cases requiring exercise of the court’s supervisory authority, and cases of a unique nature.1 PLAs raising challenges to credibility determinations, discretionary rulings, or factual findings are often denied.
Thus, a divorce litigant who files a PLA contending that the trial judge abused her discretion in setting spousal maintenance might be wasting time and money, as might the criminal defendant who contends that the trial judge erroneously believed the victim’s testimony. Such cases are rarely accepted.
An appellant’s brief must include, as an appendix, a copy of the order under review, an index to the record on appeal, any materials that form the basis for the underlying ruling, and other items enumerated by rule.2 Many appellants fail to satisfy this requirement, possibly because they don’t grasp its practical purpose.
If an appeal involves an important document (such as a contract, will, lease, or insurance policy), it should be appended to the brief because the record on appeal is sent only to the authoring justice’s chambers. Unless another justice specifically asks to see it, it might stay there until after the ruling is issued.
For example, in the first district, it’s unlikely the record on appeal will be shuffled up and down the hallway so that each member of the three-justice panel can examine it. In the other appellate districts, where justices’ offices could be hundreds of miles apart, three-judge review of the full record is even less likely. In a case before the seven-member Illinois Supreme Court, that bulky record containing the smoking gun document is probably not going to be shipped from Chicago to southern Illinois and all points in between.
Regardless, attaching a key document to an appellate brief gives the reviewing court immediate access during oral argument, which cannot be said for an electronic copy. Good appellate lawyers must ensure that important documents are in the record on appeal and the appendix.
Generally, a notice of appeal under Rule 303 must be filed “with the clerk of the circuit court within 30 days after the entry of the final judgment appealed from.”4 Too often, practitioners file their notice late, either unwittingly or perhaps hoping neither the court nor the appellee will notice.
Make no mistake, an untimely notice of appeal is almost always discovered. The court might discover it immediately and dismiss an appeal on its own motion, or it might find out only after the attorneys have spent countless hours (and clients’ dollars) briefing and arguing the appeal.
The rules likewise provide a procedure to file untimely PLAs in the Illinois Supreme Court.7 Thus, an attorney representing an appellee may be wise to avoid filing a motion to dismiss an untimely appeal until 60 days have passed since the appealable ruling, because doing so alerts the appellant to the problem while a cure remains possible.
Many litigants incorrectly conclude that filing an appeal is all it takes to preserve their rights on appeal. Unfortunately, they often ignore the importance of seeking a stay in the trial court, the appellate court, or both. The failure to seek a stay may result in a case being rendered moot, or perhaps in a pyrrhic victory with no chance of substantive relief.
One example is In re Tekela,8 which involved a mother whose parental rights were terminated. She filed a notice of appeal but did not seek a stay, thereby permitting her children to be adopted during the pendency of the appeal.
Eventually, the first district entered an order reversing the termination. Shortly thereafter, however, the appellate court learned for the first time that the children had already been adopted and living with a new family for roughly a year and a half.
Subsequent changes to the Supreme Court Rules addressed several of the issues in Tekela, but the changes generally pertain only to children and parental rights. Appellants in other cases should still consider whether a request for a stay or expedited review is necessary.
The appellant bears the burden of presenting the appellate court with a sufficient record for review, and the absence of an adequate record severely undermines the appellant’s case.14 Accordingly, an attorney who conducts an important hearing without a court reporter commits a serious mistake.
Nonetheless, if the parties can agree and stipulate as to what was said in open court, they can file an agreed statement of facts.15 If they’re unable to do that, a litigant may file a “bystander’s report.”16 This requires a person who was present to accurately memorialize the testimony. This person may be, for example, a party or the witness.
The bystander’s report must be served on all parties within 28 days after the notice of appeal is filed. Additional deadline requirements exist for proposed amendments to the report, and eventually it must be presented to the trial judge who heard the case.
The trial judge will then resolve any disagreements over whether the bystander’s report accurately memorializes the testimony, and then certify the bystander’s report so that the appellate court can consider it. While this is an imperfect and difficult process that has a higher risk of error than a verbatim transcript, it is better than presenting the reviewing court with no record of proceedings.
In some appellate districts, draft rulings are prepared by the justice or her law clerks and provided to the panel in advance of oral argument. In others, a clerk prepares a “bench memo” in advance of oral argument that sometimes resembles a ruling except instead of saying something like “the court finds…,” it says “the court should find.…” Assuming the memo is adopted by the authoring justice and other panel members, it is converted into a formal opinion. Of course, if the authoring justice or panel is not comfortable with the contents of the draft opinion or bench memo, it will be modified before being issued as a final opinion. The Illinois Supreme Court follows a different procedure, and practices may vary from one reviewing-court judge to another.
The existence of these documents (whether in the form of a draft opinion or a bench memo) underscores the importance of the parties’ written briefs. These documents are prepared by the justices’ law clerks prior to oral argument, justices give fair consideration to their clerks’ analyses, and these documents are the foundation for a final opinion. That said, I do not suggest that oral argument is unimportant or secondary; in fact, some judges place great emphasis on oral argument, and sometimes draft rulings are changed significantly in reaction to it.
Nonetheless, an appellate brief is the first and best opportunity to make your case. If you have a critical point to make, don’t save it for oral argument. Indeed, many cases are not orally argued. A party must request it, and the requests are not always granted.
Finally, appellants should take full advantage of their reply brief. Reply briefs are an opportunity to attack the appellee’s arguments and obtain the last word. They should not be used to merely regurgitate points already made.
The Chief Justice raises a good point. Suppose you’re representing an appellant in a negligence case. The court doesn’t need a primer on the elements of negligence, so don’t spend much time setting forth these elements. Instead, focus on why the facts of your case involve a duty, breach of duty, causation, and damages. Keep in mind four important caveats when crafting a statement of facts, however.
Avoid being argumentative. This is not to say you should not frame and present your facts in the best possible light. Nonetheless, providing a fair and objective recitation of facts is generally more effective than giving an editorial.
Be concise and limit the “story” to relevant and dispositive facts. Don’t spend time making a statement of facts lengthy. Focus on making it effective.
Remember the standard of review. For example, if the trial judge found that the appellee’s testimony was not credible, an appellant should highlight that because credibility determinations receive considerable deference. In contrast, if the case involves de novo review of a contract dispute, any favorable language in the agreement should be highlighted, and the trial judge’s analysis is less important.
One other point to consider on this issue, this one being from the court’s perspective: attorneys who are willing to slyly disregard or disobey formatting rules may be perceived as likely to misstate the facts or law or otherwise mislead the court. Don’t jeopardize credibility by failing to comply with Rule 341, especially because that rarely strengthens the brief. Indeed, most practitioners do not need 70 pages to present an effective argument, and those with truly complex appeals may file a motion to exceed the page limitation.
Attorneys asking a court to do something should always aid the court by providing an authoritative basis for the request. Citing the best authorities available seems like a common-sense approach, but lawyers in both the trial and reviewing courts often make one of six mistakes in citing authority. Here’s how to avoid them.
Cite cases that are relevant. Lawyers sometimes cite cases that do not support their position, that support their adversary’s position, or that have nothing to do with the case.
Avoid string cites when they are unnecessary. If an adversary argues that no court has ever awarded the relief you seek, citing a case from each appellate district is an effective way to overcome that argument. However, citing five cases for a basic proposition of law is an effective way to annoy the court.
Succinctly explain the rationale. Lawyers sometimes cite a case without expressing a clear reason or rationale for the citation, or conversely, they spend an entire paragraph analyzing a case when less discussion will suffice. Consider whether a one-sentence parenthetical following a case citation would be sufficient or helpful.
One of the most important things a practitioner can do in the appellate court is to carefully choose the issues to appeal and how to best frame them. A lawyer on the losing end of a ruling might think that the trial judge committed a litany of errors and, occasionally, that happens. Seeking to convince the appellate court that every one of the trial judge’s rulings was erroneous is a good recipe for failure, because it’s likely that few, if any, constitute reversible error.
Worse yet, bogging down a reviewing court in unpersuasive minutiae will cause attorneys to expend significant “persuasion capital” and credibility better used on more critical issues. Therefore, instead of fixating on a dozen rulings the trial court got wrong, focus on the three or four most critical, most prejudicial, and most likely to warrant reversal.
Litigating in a reviewing court can be daunting for many attorneys, especially those who seldom do it. Ideally, these 10 tips will give the occasional appellate practitioners a higher level of comfort and understanding of the reviewing process and increase the effectiveness of their arguments.
Hon. John C. Anderson is a circuit judge in Twelfth Judicial District (Will County). He is a member of Illinois Supreme Court Rules Committee and a former law clerk to Chief Justice Thomas L. Kilbride.
Ill. S. Ct. R. 315(a) (eff. Feb. 26, 2010).
Ill. S. Ct. R. 342(a) (eff. Jan. 1, 2005).
See, e.g., Harshman v. DePhillips, 218 Ill.2d 482, 503, 844 N.E.2d 941, 945-46 (2006).
Ill. S. Ct. R. 303(a) (eff. June 4, 2008).
Ill. S. Ct. R. 303(d) (civil cases) (eff. June 4, 2008).
Ill. S. Ct. R. 606(c) (eff. Mar. 20, 2009).
Ill. S. Ct. R. 315(b) (eff. Feb. 26, 2010).
In re Tekela, 202 Ill. 2d 282, 780 N.E.2d 304 (2002).
Ill. S. Ct. R. 311 (eff. Feb. 26, 2010).
Ill. S. Ct. R. 343(c) (eff. July 1, 2008).
Ill. S. Ct. Rs. 306(a)(1) through (9) and 306(c)(5) (eff. Feb. 16, 2011).
See Witters v. Hicks, 338 Ill.App.3d 751, 755-56, 790 N.E.2d 5, 10 (2003).
Ill. S. Ct. Rs. 311(b) (eff. Feb. 26, 2010) and 343(c) (eff. July 1, 2008).
People v. Hunt, 234 Ill.2d 49, 58, 914 N.E.2d 477, 481 (2009).
Ill. S. Ct. R. 323(d) (eff. Dec. 13, 2005).
Ill. S. Ct. R. 323(c) (eff. Dec. 13, 2005).
Ill. S. Ct. R. 341 (eff. July 1, 2008).
Ill. S. Ct. R. 341(c) (eff. July 1, 2008).
Ill. S. Ct. R. 375 (eff. Feb. 1, 1994).
In re Marriage of Baumgartner, 237 Ill.2d 468, 474, 930 N.E.2d 1024, 1027 (2010).
Bryson v. News America Publications, Inc., 174 Ill.2d 77, 95, 672 N.E.2d 1207, 1217 (1996).
In re May 1991 Will County Grand Jury, 152 Ill.2d 381, 398, 604 N.E.2d 929, 938 (1992).
Ill. S. Ct. R. 341(h)(7) (eff. July 1, 2008).
Parks v. Kownacki, 193 Ill.2d 164, 180, 737 N.E.2d 287, 296 (2000).
Salerno v. Innovative Surveillance Technology, Inc., 402 Ill.App.3d 490, 502, 932 N.E.2d 101, 113 (2010).
Ill. S. Ct. R. 303(b)(2) (eff. June 4, 2008).
Ill. S. Ct. R. 315(c)(3) (eff. Feb. 26, 1010); see also People v. McDonough, 239 Ill. 2d 260, 276, 940 N.E.2d 1100, 1111 (2010).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.