Federal judges who have overseen antitrust litigation told attendees at a legal conference that the most effective competition trial attorneys are those who directly and fully answer a judge’s toughest questions and who also thoroughly confront their opponent’s best arguments.
Four judges speaking together at the same conference panel* in Washington, D.C. were unanimous in voicing annoyance about instances where competition lawyers faced with a clear question from the court either ignore the question or give a muddled answer.
US District Judge Richard Boulware of Las Vegas said lawyers presenting in court are often so focused on their talking points that they neglect to touch on points a judge specifically requested that they address, while the best attorneys “are the ones who listen and answer the judge's questions first.”
Boulware said “the oral arguments that are least effective are the arguments where the lawyer is so set on making five points to me that they made in the brief that they don't hear my questions, because the questions give you an indication of what I'm thinking, what concerns I have.”
He added, “What's worse is effectively trying to tell me I don't really understand, right, the issue they're trying to explain to me… And I try to be respectful and say, ‘It's not that I don't understand. You just have a weak argument I didn't really want to waste time on, particularly mine.’ But if you force me to say that, because you keep making the point, I eventually probably will say that to you… You don't want to be in that situation.”
San Francisco-based US District Judge Jacqueline Corley said dodging questions reduces attorneys’ credibility and increases the court’s skepticism of their claims. “One of the most powerful things you can do at oral argument is concede,” she said, noting that every good attorney knows which of their arguments are stronger versus weaker. Lawyers who “keep fighting on that sure loser” may spur the court to “tune” them out, Corley said.
US District Judge Adrienne Nelson of Portland, Oregon, said that if a judge asks counsel if they intend to file a motion to dismiss, the judge probably believes such a motion is necessary. “They’ve clearly seen something that has caught their attention, that needs to be briefed,” she said. “It doesn't mean you're going to win or you're going to lose, but it's clearly… something that needs to be more developed."
The judge is likely “wondering why, with the posture of the case, with the set of facts, and their understanding of the law,” such a motion hasn’t been filed.
Judge Nelson said that when it comes to oral arguments, a slower presentation that concentrates only on key issues is far better than a rapid-fire, overly detailed speech that feels scattershot. “It helps me focus better and confirm that the issues that ... I have focused on is actually what is important, and that way, it can help me maybe ask some additional questions that I may not have already had,” she said.
Kansas-based US District Judge Daniel Crabtree said he appreciates when, during oral arguments, a lawyer acknowledges the strength of opposing counsel’s highest quality legal claim but then identifies “what's wrong with the argument, why it doesn't work here.”
Judge Crabtree continued, “When I see somebody do something like that, I think they've really engaged, and it tells me they think they have the better in this argument because they're willing to get in and go straight to the other side's best point and take it down.”
*American Bar Association Antitrust Spring Meeting 2026. Washington, DC. March 25-27, 2026.
Please email editors@mlex.com to contact the editorial staff regarding this story, or to submit the names of lawyers and advisers.
March 27, 2026, 19:05 GMT | Insight
Federal judges who have overseen antitrust litigation told attendees at a legal conference that the most effective competition trial attorneys are those who directly and fully answer a judge’s toughest questions and who also thoroughly confront their opponent’s best arguments.