I am seeing a continued push by members of the judiciary for more "paper based advocacy". I think this is a really dangerous trend. Limiting physical contact, I get it. But why sacrifice discourse on points of contention? I& #39;ve been there. It matters. https://twitter.com/Ali__B/status/1263573910676803585">https://twitter.com/Ali__B/st...

I will give just one example. I was on an appeal last year where despite my "paper submissions", I was confronted by a panel that was convinced about a particular fact. They were wrong. I went through repeated questions at the hearing and eventually persuaded them of this fact.

Without oral submissions, I would have received the judgment - and lost (I didn& #39;t) - because the Court would have unanimously reached a conclusion on a point that they did not see (in fairness, it was a complex point).

I didn& #39;t even know this was an issue until the hearing - when the panel raised it with me immediately. It took awhile, but they came around. This was not the first time; nor was it the last. Matters of importance often only crystallize at an oral hearing.

Moreover, I& #39;m eager to know if the judges who seem keen to dispense with oral argument are going to allow the appellants to file a reply factum. How else are appellants supposed to address new/incorrect arguments made by the respondent?