Only lawyers now can argue before Supreme Court

[The Straight Story]

Associated Press= WASHINGTON (AP) — You must be a lawyer to argue before the Supreme Court.

Thought that already was the case? It wasn't until Monday, when the Supreme Court revised its 80-page rule book for the first time since 2010.

The update covers items such as filing deadlines but also adds Rule 28.8, which requires anyone arguing before the court to be a lawyer. The high court says the new rule simply codifies a "long-standing practice of the court."

A nonlawyer hasn't argued before the justices in more than three decades, though not for a lack of trying. A magazine publisher, entrepreneur and paralegal-in-training asked but were turned down, the paralegal-in-training the past year.

New York resident Samuel H. Sloan, now 68, was the last nonlawyer to do it when he represented himself in 1978 in a lawsuit involving stock trading. Sloan says he interviewed several lawyers who volunteered to represent him for free, just for the prestige of appearing before the court, but he decided to handle the job himself.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/feedarticle/10863509

[CaliforniaPeggy]

1. Good for the Supreme Court.

I was just a bit alarmed when I considered that non-lawyers might have been arguing before the Court. And then I was relieved to see it's been decades since they have.

I'm glad the tradition has now been made official!

[hughee99]

2. I wonder if someone will end up filing suit over this at some point,

and which court they would take it to. I believe the SC has ruled a defendant has the right to represent himself in court (at least in state court, if not federal).

I guess in order to have standing, though, they'd have to already have a case before the SC and then fire their lawyers. I doubt the SC would even take a case where the defendant was representing himself.

[Recursion]

3. People have stood pro se before SCOTUS

Though I don't think that's very common.