Chris Gair, ’85, Talks About First Time Arguing Before the Supreme Court
A Simple 'Trial Lawyer' Goes to the Supreme Court
Can One Argument Make Someone A 'Supreme Court Advocate'?
Chicago trial attorney Chris Gair spent Tuesday morning arguing to the U.S. Supreme Court that his client, the former Chicago alderman Patrick Daley Thompson, told FDIC contractors only "misleading" statements, and that he therefore should not have been convicted under a federal statute prohibiting making a "false statement" to the bank insurer.
"It's misleading, and we concede that, but it is not false," he said, referring to his client's statement about an outstanding loan balance to FDIC debt collectors.
In the course of trying to explain the difference between "false" and "misleading" statements, the first-time Supreme Court advocate reached for a somewhat self-deprecating example.
"Let's take an example of a statement that might be misleading," Gair began. "If I go back and change my website and say 40 years of litigation experience and then in bold caps say 'Supreme Court advocate,' that would be, after today, a true statement. It would be misleading to anybody who was thinking about whether to hire me or Mr. Francisco or Mr. Waxman, right? But a false statement would be if I had not ever argued in the United States Supreme Court."
The references to former U.S. solicitors general Noel Francisco and Seth Waxman, neither of whom appeared to be in attendance in the courtroom, seemed to amuse several of the justices, with the exception of perhaps Justice Samuel Alito Jr.
"I don't know that that's going to mislead anybody, but at best, it's mildly misleading," grumbled Alito.
Read more at Law.com