A new book from Professor Ching and Chief Judge Gass

This is a new one for the blog: Our first book review!

I just picked up a copy of Contemporary Appellate Advocacy, by ASU law professor Ann Ching and Arizona Court of Appeals Chief Judge David B. Gass.  This book manages to be both comprehensive and concise, packing what should be 1,000 pages of wisdom into a remarkably accessible 300-page guide.

The word “contemporary” in the title isn’t just marketing fluff.  This book speaks to appellate practice as it exists today, not as it existed when Saved by the Bell was on the air.  The book covers remote oral arguments (a topic dear to my heart).  It covers the increasingly common practice of judges listening to briefs after using text-to-speech conversion.  The authors understand that appellate practice in 2025 looks different than it did even five years ago.

What sets this book apart is its scope.  It of course covers the fundamentals of brief writing and oral argument, but it goes well beyond that.  There’s an entire section on “Creating your professional identity” that every new lawyer should read.  I tell associates that you want to be viewed by peers, clients, judges, and court staff as honest, trustworthy, and professional.  Not just because it’s the right thing to do (although it is), and not just because of the ethics rules or professionalism creed.  But because your reputation will follow you for your career, and you want to be viewed as a straight shooter.  It’s unusual for a book about appellate advocacy to cover professional reputation, but it’s a welcome addition.

The book really shines when discussing practical advocacy techniques.  One gem: always start with your primary argument, not by rehashing your opponent’s position.  Thom Hudson taught me this rule as “start with your positive case,” and it’s still one of the best pieces of advice I’ve received.  Another crucial insight addresses a common trap for appellate lawyers: the tendency to write briefs organized around cases rather than legal principles.  The book’s “Apply the law, not cases” section is spot on. It’s so easy to lose sight of the forest for the trees in legal writing.  But what matters is the law, not the cases.  The cases support your argument about the law, but the law should be the central focus.

I particularly appreciated the discussion on hierarchies of authority.  I have long played a game where I try to predict the winning party in an appeal just by comparing the tables of authorities.  The brief citing Arizona Supreme Court cases, respected treatises, and carefully selected out-of-state authorities often beats the one relying mostly on unpublished trial court decisions from random jurisdictions.  Even if you need those far-flung authorities to show how other jurisdictions handle an issue, you should still build your argument from first principles using controlling precedent.

The authors also defend the role of policy arguments, which is a bold stance in the age of textualism.  They correctly recognize that state courts still develop common law, and not every case turns on statutory text.  Policy matters, and we can’t always pretend that it doesn’t.  But the authors correctly recognize that policy arguments play a different role in different cases, and the law always matters most.

Perhaps most impressively, this book works for multiple audiences. Law students will find clear explanations of appellate fundamentals.  Seasoned practitioners can skip over some of that, but will still find valuable lessons about modern practice.  This isn’t surprising because the authors are a law professor and an experienced judge, but it’s an interesting approach that works well. 

Having our own Court of Appeals Chief Judge as a co-author means we’re getting advice straight from someone who reads our briefs every day.  At 300 pages, it’s a quick read that will pay dividends.

Posted by: Eric M. Fraser