|
|
| February 09, 2010 |
By: Tony Mauro |
|
.S. Supreme Court justices don’t often compliment the lawyers who appear before them — much less lawyers who argued more than 15 years ago. But that’s what Justice Clarence Thomas did in remarks at the University of Florida Levin College of Law, where he was giving the Marshall Criser Distinguished Lecture.
One student asked about oral advocacy before the court and how justices can be persuaded. Thomas began his answer Thursday with a familiar jab at his fellow justices for asking too many questions.
“If my colleagues would let you talk … assuming that improbability,” he said, drawing laughter. Turning serious, he recalled, “I have been persuaded by a lawyer from Florida.”
He said the lawyer also was a CPA and a certified financial planner, and she was disciplined for including that information in her advertising.
“She argued her own case,” Thomas said. “She was clear, you could see she was honest, she knew the record, and she won her case.”
The lawyer Thomas was complimenting is Silvia Ibanez, the petitioner in her 1994 case against the state Business and Professional Regulation Board, one of several commercial speech cases the court issued in that period. By a 7-2 vote, the court ruled the board action violated her First Amendment rights and the CPA and CFP designations were not misleading.
Ibanez, who now practices transactional, tax and estate law in Kissimmee, was pleased to hear about Thomas’ comment.
Ibanez has not argued before the high court since then, but she said she still gets asked about the case occasionally. She once taught a course in which she used the decision, surprising her students with the news that it was her case.
Ibanez recalled being unsure whether she should argue the case herself, remembering the adage about lawyers who represent themselves having fools for clients. She had never argued any appeal before.
But after a moot court in which the mock judges urged her to proceed, she decided to take her once-in-a-lifetime chance and appear before the court.
“Like everything in life, preparation is the key — hard work and preparation,” she said. “I thought, ‘No one knows the case better,’ so I decided why not.”
One of the strategic decisions she had to make before the argument was how to refer to herself — first or third person?
“I decided to use ‘petitioner’ instead of ‘I.’” It worked.
To her mind, Ibanez said the case was notable for another reason she didn’t think anyone has picked up on: the case was argued by two women — herself and Lisa Nelson for the state — and both the opinion and dissent were written by women — Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sandra Day O’Connor, respectively.
Tony Mauro is U.S. Supreme Court correspondent for ALM, parent of the Daily Business Review. |
Search the archive for more stories.
|
