Can I add a second attorney just for the final asylum hearing to help present my case more strongly? Do lawyers usually agree to that?

[Yolga]

What is the name of your state? California

Hello,

I’m preparing for what will likely be my final individual hearing in about three weeks. I have been working with my current attorney for some time. He seems very experienced in immigration law and has valuable courtroom knowledge.

That said, I’ve started feeling some doubt. While he clearly understands the legal aspects, he is very quiet and reserved — and I’m concerned that this might affect how strongly our case will be presented at the final hearing. I believe the closing argument and final delivery are crucial, and I’m considering hiring an additional attorney just for that part of the process.

Is this a professionally acceptable practice — to bring in a second attorney solely for the final hearing, while keeping the primary attorney on the case?

And in your experience, how open are attorneys to being brought in just for the closing presentation or final appearance? Is it worth looking for someone, or is it unlikely that attorneys will take on such a limited role?

Thank you for your time and insights.

 

[quincy]

What is the name of your state? California

Hello,

I’m preparing for what will likely be my final individual hearing in about three weeks. I have been working with my current attorney for some time. He seems very experienced in immigration law and has valuable courtroom knowledge.

That said, I’ve started feeling some doubt. While he clearly understands the legal aspects, he is very quiet and reserved — and I’m concerned that this might affect how strongly our case will be presented at the final hearing. I believe the closing argument and final delivery are crucial, and I’m considering hiring an additional attorney just for that part of the process.

Is this a professionally acceptable practice — to bring in a second attorney solely for the final hearing, while keeping the primary attorney on the case?

And in your experience, how open are attorneys to being brought in just for the closing presentation or final appearance? Is it worth looking for someone, or is it unlikely that attorneys will take on such a limited role?

Thank you for your time and insights.

I suggest you first discuss your concerns with your current attorney.

As a note: “Quiet” and “reserved” can be excellent qualities for an attorney to have when speaking before a judge. You want an attorney who shows respect for the court.

 

[zddoodah]

Can I add a second attorney just for the final asylum hearing to help present my case more strongly?

You are free to hire all the attorneys you can afford and who are willing to represent you.

Do lawyers usually agree to that?

As long as the attorneys you want to hire agree to it, who cares?

I’ve started feeling some doubt. While he clearly understands the legal aspects, he is very quiet and reserved — and I’m concerned that this might affect how strongly our case will be presented at the final hearing. I believe the closing argument and final delivery are crucial, and I’m considering hiring an additional attorney just for that part of the process.

You discussed your concerns with your attorney, right?

Kinda sounds like you haven't. Before going any further, you should.

 

[Taxing Matters]

I’m preparing for what will likely be my final individual hearing in about three weeks. I have been working with my current attorney for some time. He seems very experienced in immigration law and has valuable courtroom knowledge.

If your perception of his abilities is correct then you have just described the sort of attorney I'd want to hire for an immigration hearing.

That said, I’ve started feeling some doubt. While he clearly understands the legal aspects, he is very quiet and reserved — and I’m concerned that this might affect how strongly our case will be presented at the final hearing. I believe the closing argument and final delivery are crucial, and I’m considering hiring an additional attorney just for that part of the process.

I've observed that many nonlawyers have an unfortunate distorted view of hearings and trials. This is not surprising for people who have had little exposure to what real judges and lawyers at a trial or hearing. As a result people tend to rely on what they've seen in movies and TV shows as that is the only frame of reference they've had for what real life trials and hearings might be like.

Your individual asylum merits hearing is a proceeding before an immigration judge (IJ). The IJ is an administrative law judge (ALJ) employed by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). They typically know the immigration law well (at least the experienced ones). The government is represented by attorneys who are employees of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

What is most important in your hearing is not the opening or closing statements made by the attorneys. By far the most important factor on which the judge will base his or her decision is the evidence presented at the hearing. That is not to say that opening and closing statements are insignificant. The closing statement is where the attorneys sum up the evidence into a story of what evidence presented showed and explain to the judge how the evidence fits the law that is at issue.

Closing statements are more important and persuasive in a jury trial because the jury members are not legal experts and are also more likely to be persuaded by emotional arguments than a judge would be. TV and movies primarily show closing statements to juries because that heightens the drama and the writers can script a closing packed with emotion. Most real closing arguments aren't so dramatic, but it is the case that attorneys will try to pack more emotion and paint their client as a sympathetic soul when presenting to a jury.

Judges and lawyers are trained to be more objective and less swayed by emotion when reviewing evidence and analyze the case before them. The ALJ will write an opinion that states the facts as he/she determined from the evidence presented and then apply the law to those facts to explain the reasoning for the ruling the ALJ makes. The ALJ isn't going to put in that opinion anything directly from the closing argument though the closing arguments may have helped the judge reach his/her decision. That's because the closing arguments by the attorneys are not evidence and thus the courts cannot rely what is said during those statements. If the decision by the ALJ ends up going to the Court of Appeals the appellate judges are going to look carefully to see if the legal analysis of the ALJ is correct given the facts determined by the ALJ. This is why the evidence presented in the case is so important and matters much more than the closing statements. Typically the appellate judges aren't even going to look at the closing arguments. What the ALJ will be much more interested in is reading the attorneys' written argument that they submit after the hearing. That's the actual final statement of the attorneys. A good writer is what matters for that. A quiet attorney who is an excellent writer is going to be much more effective than an agressive attorney whose writing pales in comparison.

I used to be an attorney for the IRS. Tax Court trials are, like the Immigration merits hearing, proceedings where the judge makes the decision (called a bench trial) rather than a trial to a jury. The same qualities that made for a good attorney in Tax Court are the same qualities that are important for an attorney presenting a case in a hearing before the ALJ. As a whole the quiet attorneys did at least as well in Tax Court as the attorneys who come as more agressive and dramatic.

Is this a professionally acceptable practice — to bring in a second attorney solely for the final hearing, while keeping the primary attorney on the case?

It doesn't violate any the rules of professional conduct for lawyers or any court rule. But it is not often done because (1) the attorney being hired for that limited role exposes himself/herself to possible malpractice risk for some things the other attorney did, (2) the attorney who has handled the case from the beginning is in a much better position to give a compelling closing argument because he or she knows the details of the case much better, and (3) it costs the client a good chunk more in legal fees having two attorneys at the hearing than one.

For what it's worth, if one of my clients came to me asking to bring in another attorney just for the closing argument I'd reject that request. I don't want some attorney who isn't very familiar with the case getting up there and running the risk that the attorney will make a mess of the closing argument.