Why can't the lawyer who handled the trial also handle the appeal?

When a case goes on appeal, a client often can obtain the best possible result by retaining an appellate lawyer. There are several reasons for this.

First, to be effective in an appeal, a lawyer needs to use very different skills than the skills necessary for a successful trial. Gathering evidence, interviewing potential witnesses, cross-examining adverse witnesses, and making a passionate, often emotional, argument are the key skills of the trial lawyer.

On appeal, on the other hand, a lawyer with strong writing, research, and logic skills can literally mean the difference between winning and losing. Experience working with and appearing before appellate judges again and again also builds the judgment and wisdom necessary to evaluate what issues, if any, are likely to lead to success on appeal.

To use an analogy from the field of medicine, your family practitioner may be best for most of your medical care, but when it’s time for surgery or other special care, you consult with a specialist, not your family practitioner.

Second, an independent appellate lawyer is able to limit his or her review of the case to only what is contained in the record, just as the appellate court will do. A trial lawyer who took the depositions, interviewed the witnesses, and investigated the case before trial can very easily lose track of exactly what the trial court heard on the record and what the trial lawyer knows really happened.

Finally, appellate lawyers will typically have more intense experience with appellate litigation. Even if a trial lawyer handles every appeal in his or her cases, the vast majority of cases are not appealed either because the parties settle the case or the losing party decides not to take an appeal. Thus, a trial lawyer will not have nearly as many opportunities to practice appellate litigation as an appellate lawyer who handles appeals for a number of trial lawyers.