I would have said “trivia”, but nothing at the SCOTUS is really trivial, and certainly not some of the miscellanous data reported here.
We were just talking about insularity, and today’s little tidbits flesh that out some:
Following recent trends, a small group of top advocates continues to argue a large number of cases at the Court. Lawyers from the Office of the Solicitor General constitute the largest part of this elite tier: Solicitor General Donald Verrilli himself has argued four cases, while Deputy Solicitor General Michael Dreeben and Assistant to the Solicitor General Nicole Saharsky have each argued three cases. Twelve other lawyers from that office have argued two cases each.
Outside of the Office of the Solicitor General, John Bursch, Paul Clement, Tom Goldstein, and Neal Katyal lead the pack with three arguments each through January. William Messenger, Mark Perry, Kevin Russell, and Eric Schnapper round out the group of advocates who have argued at least twice during the Term…Advocates with experience (either past or present) in the Office of the Solicitor General have argued fifty-one times, constituting forty-three percent of all arguments…Lawyers who attended law school at Harvard, Yale, or Stanford argued forty-nine times, forty-one percent of all arguments. Lawyers who had clerked on the Supreme Court argued fifty-seven times, while lawyers who had clerked at one of the federal courts of appeals argued ninety times.
It goes without saying that none of these top advocates has ever tried a case to a jury. The prevalence of lawyers who had clerked at one of the federal courts of appeals or at the Supreme Court is telling.
The vast majority of arguments in the federal appellate courts are both argued and decided by people who have never practiced law in the sense of having had real human being type clients with something important at stake, at least for them.
This is a problem.