Please Read the Rules (and Other Good Advice): A Day With the Maine Supreme Judicial Court

Buckle up for a long (but informative!) post, everyone.

On March 30, 2026, the Maine State Bar Association hosted an all-day seminar on appellate practice before the Maine Supreme Judicial Court. The seminar featured ten separate educational sessions, each led by one or more current Law Court Justices. Court staff, a Maine Law professor, and several practicing attorneys also participated. The authors of this blog were pleased to be in attendance, and we thought we would share some of the wisdom we gleaned after spending a day with the Law Court.

Below you’ll find a brief description of each session, followed by a handful of key takeaways. Note that the Justices and their fellow panelists packed a huge amount of information into each session, such that this post only scratches the surface of the day’s discussions.

• Session 1 – Introduction and Little-Known Facts about the SJC: Chief Justice Valerie Stanfill kicked off the day with an overview of the Court, its various roles, and its basic operations. A few notable takeaways:
  • Maine statute requires the justices of the SJC to be “learned in the law and of sobriety of manners.” See 4 M.R.S. § 1. Apparently the phrase “sober as a judge” is not just a fun turn of phrase (although, at least in Maine, it would be more accurate to say “sober as a Justice”).
  • As we discussed in our last blog post, the SJC wears several different hats. When it is “sitting as the Law Court,” it is acting in its most well-known role of determining questions of law arising from civil and criminal actions as the state’s court of final appeal. But the Court has other functions as well—it has the broad authority to promulgate and enforce rules governing the judicial branch, it has the final say on issues of attorney discipline, it has original jurisdiction over challenges to legislative redistricting, and its justices are required to give their advisory opinions on important questions of law “and upon solemn occasions” when asked to do so by the Governor, Senate, or House of Representatives.
  • The court has an assigned “triage justice” who is tasked with taking a first look at newly-filed cases and making an initial determination as to whether a case should be decided on the briefs or scheduled for oral argument. Chief Justice Stanfill noted that appeals where one or more of the parties are self-represented are often decided on the briefs, as are appeals where the sole argument relates to the findings of fact made below.
  • For each case, the Court must also decide whether to issue a published opinion (which constitutes binding precedent) or a memorandum decision (which is typically brief and carries no precedential value).
• Session 2 – Overview of Recent Rule Changes: Justice Wayne Douglas was joined by Matthew Pollack (the Clerk of the Law Court, who we suspect may have orchestrated this entire event to beg practitioners to read the rules), and practitioner Tyler J. Smith to discuss the last five years of changes to the Maine Rules of Appellate Procedure. Notable changes include:
  • Rule 7(c), which now requires a party to first file an electronic copy (vs paper copies) of its brief. The Clerk then reviews the electronic copy and either approves the brief (at which point the party has seven days to file ten printed copies of the brief with the Court), or rejects the brief for content and formatting errors (at which point the party has seven days to file a corrected brief).
  • Rule 7A(g)(3), which now requires a brief’s page numbers to begin with the cover page as page 1 and to continue sequentially from there. This change is in recognition of the fact that judges, clerks, and attorneys now often rely on PDF versions of the brief as opposed to paper copies. Beginning the page numbering on the cover page (i.e., the first page of the PDF file) allows PDF users to more easily maneuver through the document.
  • Rule 10(a)(2), which now requires a party filing a motion with the Law Court to (a) state that the movant has notified opposing counsel of the motion or state why the movant was unable to do so, (b) state opposing counsel’s position on the motion, and (c) state whether opposing counsel intends to file a response to the motion. Matt Pollack specifically decried the practice of notifying opposing counsel of the motion immediately before filing it and then stating to the court that opposing counsel did not respond to the inquiry. Rest assured that the Clerk’s office is not fooled by these antics.
• Session 3 – Preparing for the Appeal: Justice Douglas was again joined by Tyler Smith, as well as practitioner Jeremy Pratt, to discuss how trial attorneys can prepare a case for appeal and ensure an adequate record for appellate review. This session focused largely on the need to object early, object often, and object even at uncomfortable moments (as James Kirkland Batson famously told his trial attorney in what later became the seminal United States Supreme Court case on racial discrimination in jury selection—“object anyway!”). Takeaways below:
  • Unpreserved objections are reviewed only for “obvious error,” which is a punishingly difficult standard to meet on appeal. Hence the need to object—and articulate a clear basis for the objection—at each instance of potential error, and to repeat those objections at critical junctures (including during the opposing party’s opening and closing arguments, even if it feels uncomfortable or annoying).
  • Identifying and raising contentious issues before trial via a motion in limine is helpful, but practitioners should not rely on the court’s decision on a motion in limine at trial. If the court denies a motion to exclude certain evidence, for example, the party objecting to that evidence should raise his or her objection again when the opposing party offers that evidence at trial.
  • Attorneys should push for all substantive discussions with the trial court, including in-chambers discussions, to be transcribed or recorded in order to preserve the record for appeal.
  • An attorney dissatisfied with the result of a bench trial should consider filing a motion for amended or additional finding pursuant to Me. R. Civ. P. 52(b). By filing such a motion, the standard for appellate review changes—the Court does not “assume that the trial court made all the findings necessary to support its judgment” (as it would in the absence of a Rule 52(b) motion), but instead “review[s] the original findings and any additional findings made in response to the motion for findings to determine if they are sufficient, as a matter of law, to support the result and if they are supported by the evidence in the record.” Jarvis v. Jarvis, 2003 ME 53, ¶ 18, 832 A.2d 775.
• Session 4 – Justiciability: For this session, Chief Justice Stanfill was joined by Matt Pollack and Justice Catherine Connors to discuss the Court’s handling of justiciability principles such as final judgments, standing, and mootness:
  • Matt Pollack discussed the Clerk’s office’s screening procedure for timeliness and compliance with the final judgment rule. He noted that it can be particularly challenging for the Clerk’s office to ascertain whether an appeal that appears interlocutory fits into one of the exceptions to the final judgment rule, given that at the time of the initial screening the Clerk’s office only has the Notice of Appeal to work with. He suggested that, while not required by the rules, counsel bringing an interlocutory appeal file a separate statement along with their Notice of Appeal stating why the appeal fits into an exception to the final judgment rule.
  • If the Clerk’s office can’t tell whether an interlocutory appeal fits into an exception to the final judgment rule, the Court will issue an order to show cause as to why the Court should proceed with the appeal. If the appeal is plainly improper, the Court will issue an order dismissing the appeal. Matt Pollack noted that where a plainly improper appeal is filed, counsel need not rush to move to dismiss the appeal, but should instead give the Court time to act. If the Court issues a docketing notice without a dismissal or order to show cause, then go ahead and file your motion to dismiss.
  • The panel also addressed the issue of mootness—specifically, they noted the importance of providing evidence to the Court (likely in the form of an affidavit) that intervening facts or circumstances have rendered an issue moot. The Court cannot conclude that an issue on appeal is moot based merely on counsel’s assertion in his or her brief.
• Session 5 – The Nuts and Bolts of Appellate Practice: Justice Rick Lawrence was again joined by Matt Pollack to cover common procedural and logistical issues that arise in appellate practice (again, if there was one takeaway from this event, it is that Matt Pollack would really, really like it if you would please read the rules). A few additional notes:
  • With the Maine court system transitioning to e-filing, the record on appeal will in many cases be a hybrid of electronic and paper documents for some time. Where the relevant trial court transitions to e-filing midway through a case, documents filed in hard copy will not be scanned in, but instead will be provided to the Law Court by the trial court in hard copy. But documents filed electronically will be transmitted to the Law Court electronically. In the future, be prepared for records to consist almost entirely of electronically-filed documents.
  • Some practical tips for oral argument: wear a suit jacket or blazer with lapels to hold a lavalier microphone; avoid scarves or other garments that might interfere with or brush against the microphone; have a belt or pockets to hold a transmitter (the panelists acknowledged the near impossibility of finding women’s pants with sufficient pockets); and (most importantly) remember not to vent to co-counsel while the microphone is hot.
  • There are a few instances when it is ok to bug the Clerk’s office: when you have not received a docketing notice within three weeks after the notice of appeal being filed; when the Court has not issued a briefing schedule within six weeks of issuing the docketing notice; when you have not heard from the Court for more than two days after electronic submission of a brief; when you have not heard from the Court with respect to oral argument or consideration on the briefs for more than six weeks after the appeal was filed; when it has been several months since oral argument, you have not received a decision, and your client insists you call the Court to ask when they can expect a decision (the Clerk’s office can’t give you an answer, but will understand your need to call and satisfy your client); and finally, when you have read the rules and still have a question about procedure (emphasis in the original slides for this presentation).
• Session 6 – Making Your Argument: The Brief: Justice Julia Lipez was joined by Professor Sara Wolff of the University of Maine School of Law, Lead Law Clerk Matthew Gerety, and Assistant Attorney General Paul Suitter to discuss effective brief writing. A few takeaways below:
  • The Justices and Court staff rely heavily on the section headings in the Table of Contents, the statement of the issues, and the summary of the argument to guide their review and framing of the issues. Our #1 takeaway from this presentation is that it is worth taking the time to really agonize over making your section headings and organization as effective and persuasive as possible.
  • Justices are people too—they appreciate interesting and well-written briefs, get bogged down with long block quotes, and prefer the use of party names vs. generic “Appellee” and “Appellant” titles. They are also happy to see a photo, map, or other demonstrative exhibit embedded in a brief if that exhibit will assist the Court in understanding the issue. Remember that your brief is only one in a massive stack of briefs the Justice is required to read in the course of their job—strive to produce a well-written brief that stands out from the pack.
  • Along that same vein, Professor Wolff emphasized the importance of telling a simple human story and conveying the emotion underlying the legal issues at play. Being deliberate in how you present and organize your facts, how you introduce your client, and how you frame any underlying policy issues can help elevate a brief from a dry recitation of the law to a compelling personal story (but, use a light touch—don’t go overboard on the dramatics).
• Session 7—Ethics in Appellate Practice: Justice Lawrence, along with practitioners Katherine Hudson-MacRae and Keith Richard, discussed ethical issues in appellate practice, including whether to take an appeal, accuracy in briefing, dealing with unrepresented parties, and handling errors by trial counsel:
  • The panel emphasized that a party must have a “non-frivolous” basis in law for bringing an appeal. While this is not a particularly high bar, it does require attorneys to engage in some client management in cases where there is truly no path to victory on appeal. One situation where an appeal may be frivolous is where there is a Law Court decision directly on point that is only a few years old.
  • For court-appointed appellate counsel in criminal matters, there are additional considerations when a client seeks to bring an appeal that the attorney believes to be frivolous after a thorough and conscientious review of the record. An attorney in this situation may not merely abandon his or her client, but instead must follow the procedure governed by Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in order to withdraw from the case. We won’t get into the weeds of the Anders brief procedure, but safe to say that attorneys taking court-appointed criminal appeals should make themselves familiar with the topic.
  • It is a bad, reputation-destroying look to misquote legal authority or misrepresent the facts below. Don’t do it, no matter how tempting.
• Session 8—Making Your Argument: Oral Argument: Justice Andrew Mead was joined by practitioners Michelle King, Christopher MacLean, and Hunter Umphrey to discuss effective oral advocacy:
  • Justice Mead emphasized that oral argument can and does impact the Court’s decision-making. A nice reminder for practitioners who occasionally wonder (usually in the middle of hours of grueling preparation) whether the Court cares about what they have to say on oral argument.
  • Justice Mead also stated that he finds it most effective when an attorney takes one minute of protected time (no more or less) to succinctly state the issue on appeal and a few brief bullet points as to why the court should rule in his or her favor before offering themself up for questions. He noted that oral argument is not the place to make an overly-emotional pitch, engage in heated verbal jousting with the Court, or crack jokes that may be off-putting to the parties affected by the case. Instead, he emphasized being well-prepared and being yourself (“Don’t try to be Clarence Darrow”).
  • Finally, Justice Mead provided what he referred to as an “escape hatch” for advocates being grilled unrelentingly on an issue: “I’m going to stand on my briefs on that issue.” This is a signal to the Court that you have exhausted your arguments as to the point, and the Court will likely take the hint and allow you to move on to a better point.
  • Michelle King also made the important point that, with the advent of live audio streaming of oral arguments, your audience is no longer limited to the people in the courtroom. Anyone may be listening to an argument, which is another reason to treat the Court, the parties, and the issues with respect.
• Session 9—What I Wish I Knew When I Was a Practitioner: Justices Connors and Lipez shared insights they have learned on the bench that they wish they had known while in practice, including the following:
  • Justice Lipez emphasized the importance of insisting on making a record below, even where the trial court or the opposing party wishes to have conversations off the record. She also noted the difficulty for the Court of understanding transcripts of often-inaudible whispered conversations held at sidebar, and noted that, for issues of importance, trial counsel should ask the judge to either invite counsel to chambers or send the jury out of the courtroom to allow counsel to have a clear, on-the-record discussion.
  • Justice Lipez further noted the practice of former Chief Judge Levy of the US District Court for the District of Maine, who would end proceedings by asking “What did I forget to address?” (As a former law clerk to Judge Levy, Julia MacDonald can confirm that she heard this question many times.) Even without the benefit of this question, trial counsel should not be shy if they believe the judge is about to wrap up a hearing without addressing a critical issue.
  • Justice Connors emphasized the importance of collaboration in drafting and arguing an appeal. She advised that, when possible, a practitioner should ask other appellate attorneys in their office to review the matter on appeal and provide a different perspective. In the same vein, an appellate attorney should talk through their brief with their colleagues, and should attempt to explain the issues on appeal to a lay person, in order to focus and streamline their arguments.
• Session 10—Panel Discussion: The full panel of Justices finally participated in a panel discussion followed by questions and answers. Some highlights below:
  • The Justices each take remarkably different approaches to preparing for argument. Some begin their review with the bench memo prepared by the assigned law clerk, others begin with the appellant’s table of contents and summary of the argument, and at least one begins with the appendix and trial court orders and attempts to guess the issues on appeal before moving on to the briefs and bench memo (this approach appeared to surprise even the other justices).
  • When asked how they feel about amicus briefs, the Justices seemed to agree that they are often useful in helping the Court to understand the implications of their ruling, and noted that they occasionally affirmatively ask for amicus briefs in cases with significant public policy consequences. But, don’t go overboard—keep them brief.
  • Finally, the Justices expressed different opinions as to whether trial counsel should argue a case on appeal—some like being able to question trial counsel directly about their choices below, while others believe cases benefit from the fresh perspective of new appellate counsel.

As noted at the outset, this is a long post because it was a full day of panels. But, as we have hopefully also conveyed, there was much to learn from the Justices and their fellow panelists. We are grateful the Court and other panelists took the time to share their knowledge, and we hope to see other events like this in the future. In the meantime, we will do our very best to read the rules in the hopes of staying on the good side of Clerk’s office, and we advise our readers to do the same.

40

SHARES

Share on Facebook

Post on X

Follow us