In 1995, the Philadelphia-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit promulgated Local Appellate Rule 28.1(d), which states in full: "The court expects counsel to exercise appropriate professional behavior in all briefs and to refrain from making ad hominem attacks on opposing counsel or parties." Exhibiting professionalism on appeal may seem like good policy, but apparently it can be quite difficult advice to follow in practice.
It is hardly an overstatement to observe that in many cases I encounter as they reach the appellate stage, the parties themselves and often their trial court attorneys have concluded that the trial judge must be biased or corrupt (if he has ruled in favor of the opposing party) or particularly brilliant and fair (if the client has won below). Where a case has gone to trial, often the losing attorneys have a lengthy list of grievances in the form of adverse rulings that individually and certainly collectively demonstrate the trial judge’s ineptness. Moreover, the attorneys for the opposing parties often develop or exacerbate animosities in the process of litigating a case on the road to producing a final, appealable decision.
