On April 6, 2009 Meredith had a once-in-a-lifetime experience. Let me explain. She is a second-year law student at UND and is enrolled in a Clinical Legal Education Program for which she will earn six semester credits. Students in the clinic are supervised by two law school professors, Margaret Moore Jackson and Daniel M. Schaffzin. The students handle real clients, people who cannot afford to hire their own attorney, and have legal problems involving employment or housing. According to the professors, about once every three years a case will come along which wends its way through the lower courts and is appealed to the North Dakota Supreme Court. Meredith, along with teammates Arin Ridl, Diane Wehrman, and Megan Jahner, wrote the legal brief which was filed with the high court. Team members drew straws and Meredith was selected to represent the appellant, Crystal Schweitzer, at oral argument before the five justices of the state supreme court.
Until last year, only third-year law students were allowed to argue before the North Dakota Supreme Court. The rules were amended to allow any law student participating in the Clinical Legal Education Program to do so. Reportedly, Supreme Court Justice Dale V. Sandstrom asked a 3L at the beginning of her oral argument, "Why should we listen to what a law student has to say on this matter?"
For those who have never attended oral arguments before the state supreme court, the process goes something like this: The appellant's attorney goes first. This attorney represents the party that is dissatisfied with the ruling made by the lower court and is asking the supreme court to overturn that ruling. Appellant's counsel gets 30 minutes to argue, and not a minute more! The podium has red, green, and amber lights. The amber light warns that time is coming to an end. When the red light illuminates, the attorney had better conclude in a sentence or two at most. Otherwise, the justices can get peevish and will cut the attorney off in mid-sentence. Appellant's counsel can reserve some of the 30 minutes for rebuttal argument which is allowed to appellants only since they have the burden of persuasion. Appellee's counsel represents the victorious party in the lower court. This attorney is allowed 20 minutes to argue with no rebuttal opportunity.
The days of preparing a written argument which is then regurgitated to the five justices are long gone. Once the argument begins, justices quickly interrupt the attorney with question after question. I've listened and observed arguments made before the United States Supreme Court and do not believe the attorneys appearing before that court are questioned more vigorously than those arguing before the North Dakota Supreme Court. And there are no Clarence Thomases on North Dakota's bench who sit quietly, never asking a question.
So for 30 minutes, including the 5 minutes she reserved for rebuttal, Meredith was grilled by one justice after another. Some people characterize this exercise as intellectually stimulating. Others, like an attorney friend of mine, Brad Peterson, who observed the arguments, described the process simply as "torture." Brad was there to see Meredith in action because he is a director with North Dakota Legal Services, a legal aid program for indigent clients, and Meredith will be working at NDLS this summer. After the arguments, Brad said he hope Meredith would not change her mind and go to work for some other firm or agency.
Meredith and advisor Margaret Moore Jackson are all smiles after oral arguments, and with good reason. You can judge for yourself by listening to the arguments [see links below] but IMHO, Meredith exhibited a command of the law and facts that was truly astounding. She never got rattled. She never backed down. She laid out her client's position clearly and forcefully.
The team: Margaret, Mere, Arin, Diane, Megan, and Daniel have a little fun with family photographers in the courtroom after the arguments. This team worked endlessly to prepare Meredith for the oral arguments and deserve much of the credit for how well it went.
I brought Mom to observe. Years ago, she played duplicate bridge with Chief Justice VandeWalle in a local bridge club so that added interest to the event.
Chief Justice
Gerald VandeWalle
The team poses in front of the entrance to the clerk of the supreme court's office.
If you've made it this far, you may want to hear the oral arguments. The legal briefs filed by the parties can be accessed by clicking here for the Appellant's brief, and here for the Appellee's brief. To assist you in following the arguments, here is a quick and dirty synopsis of the case, as I understand it:
Sheryl [a pseudonum] was employed as a janitor at PM company [another pseudonym]. PM contracted with Empress company to screen job applicants. Sheryl called an employee at Empress saying that she knew of a job opening at PM and wanted her brother to be considered for the position. There was some dispute over whether Sheryl identified herself as a supervisor at PM when she made the call. PM fired Sheryl alleging she engaged in misconduct by holding herself out as a supervisor when she was not one. Sheryl then applied for unemployment compensation. PM resisted and a telephonic hearing was held before a hearing officer with Job Service North Dakota, the state agency which handles unemployment compensation. The hearing officer sided with PM and concluded Sheryl engaged in misconduct, thereby disqualifying her from the receipt of unemployment benefits. That decision was appealed to the district court and later to the North Dakota Supreme Court.
To listen to the 51-minute argument go to this site www.ndcourts.com/Calendar
Next, click on "Listen to oral argument." The recording will download and you can listen to it at your leisure. You need RealPlayer to listen to the recording. There is a free download of RealPlayer basic on the web site. Enjoy.