Do The Judges All Read the Briefs or Do They Delegate that to Their Law Clerks?
Yes. Not only does each of the judges on your panel read the briefs, and appendices, and often controlling cases, your briefs are also read by at least one law clerk and one of our staff attorneys. Without exception, each judge on every panel to which I have been assigned has been prepared by the time of oral argument to discuss the matter intelligently during conference.

Why Does it Take So Long To Get A Written Decision?
It doesn't. The Court of Appeals strives to render a written decision no more than one year after the Notice of Appeal is filed. We are relatively successful at that. Most of that time runs before the members of the panel assigned to your case ever see the briefs. This period before the briefs are delivered to us includes any time used by preparation of the transcript, extensions, supplementation of the record, motions to strike, and rescheduling of oral argument. The panel members receive the briefs on the fifteenth day of the month that is two months prior to the month in which your matter will be heard. According to our internal rules, the assigned author should circulate the initial draft of the decision within ninety days after oral argument, although most opinions circulate much more quickly. Even if the matter is not scheduled for oral argument, we have a date on which it is calendared and the time runs from the conference on that matter. The other judges on the panel are expected to act on the proposed decision within seven days, although additional time is allowed for dissenting and concurring opinions. Our average time for issuing a final written decision after conference or oral argument is 47 days.

What's the Difference Among Opinions, Memorandum Decisions, and Per Curiam Decisions?
Complexity and novelty. When a case involves an issue of first impression or if this court concludes that the trial court erred, it will be addressed in a published opinion that we hope provides helpful guidance to the bar and the trial courts. If, in contrast, the issue presented is a limited matter of settled law, the court will issue an unpublished per curiam decision that is not "authored" by any particular judge. Somewhere in the middle are memorandum decisions. These involve more complicated factual patterns or legal issues than a per curiam, but do not address new legal concepts. Although typically these are not published, on occasion the panel deems that a memorandum decision may have some utility to the bar at large and designates it for publication. The theory of unpublished per curiam or memorandum decisions is that they are intended to be helpful only to the parties and trial judge involved in that particular case because they do not advance the development of the law generally.

Why Does Everything I File in the Supreme Court End Up in the Court of Appeals?
Because the Supreme Court transfers them to us. With the exception of matters that may only be heard in the Utah Supreme Court, all cases are now routinely transferred to the Court of Appeals for disposition. In this manner, the Supreme Court is able to control its docket by granting petitions for certiorari only on matters that warrant the attention of the highest court of this state. When a notice of appeal is filed on a matter that the Supreme Court intends to transfer to this court, the clerks' office will notify the parties that they have ten days to indicate why the matter should be retained by that court. If the parties do not respond or the Supreme Court is unconvinced, it will be transferred to the Court of Appeals.

Do You Have Any Advice for Advocates?
Yes, subject to the caveat that I still have a lot to learn myself.

1. The Addendum Is Your Friend. It is not unusual for me and others of my colleagues to read briefs at places other than the office. Therefore, it is helpful to have the critical documents available while we are reading. For example, if your case is a contract dispute, please include a complete copy of the contract in the addendum. It is my strong preference to read the critical language in context. Although this may seem obvious, I have had to ask my law clerks to search through the record for the relevant documents on a number of occasions already. Likewise, if the dispute concerns competing claims for real property, i.e., boundary by acquiescence, a map can be very useful in educating us about the dispute. In suggesting that you utilize the appendix, I am not asking you to include every document or deposition cited in the brief. An over-inclusive addendum is as unhelpful as an under-inclusive one.

2. Focus on the Standard of Review - We Do. After a few months of serving on this court I observed to one of my colleagues that each time I picked up a set of briefs, I also had to find the right color reading glasses for that matter. By that I meant that the standard of review drives the analysis. We look at matters very differently depending upon the context in which it arrives at this court. For example, an appeal of a summary judgment is reviewed de novo to determine if there were material issues of fact in dispute Ð green glasses; an assertion that the trial court has erred as a matter of law is reviewed de novo with no deference to the trial court Ð blue glasses; and challenges to a factual finding of the trial court are reviewed with great deference to the trial's court's unique ability to weigh the evidence - red glasses. Written and oral argument is most effective when tailored to the relevant standard of review. Because we are wearing our tinted glasses, we won't see it your way unless you do.

3. The Marshaling Rule is Just An Attempt to Make You Wear Your Red Glasses. A huge portion of the briefs filed with this court are spent rearguing the weight of the evidence presented in the trial court. Because we are wearing our red glasses, this approach is not persuasive. I now think of the marshaling rule as an exercise in intellectual discipline. If you can fill a page with evidence that supports the challenged factual findings, an attack on those findings is probably not your best argument on appeal.