Michael White, a 2014 cum laude graduate of Albany Law School, graduated magna cum laude from the State University of New York at Plattsburgh with a Bachelor’s degree in Political Science.
While in law school, Michael served as the Executive Editor for Symposium for the Albany Law Review. He also won the award for best oral advocate in the Domenick L. Gabrielli Appellate Advocacy Moot Court Competition, and he was selected to represent the law school in a national moot court competition in Virginia. Additionally, he worked for the United States District Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of New York and he completed an internship with the City of Albany’s Law Department.
Michael has begun his legal career at Martin, Harding & Mazzotti, LLP, which he views as a great fit for his experience and his passion to help people—especially in times when they need an advocate most to protect their rights.
He prepared this essay based upon an independent study he undertook in his last semester in law school, part of which involved joining the Court of Appeals Intensive seminar's visits to the state's high court and meeting with its Judges.
This paper will highlight the lessons that I learned in my final year at Albany Law School studying effective oral advocacy techniques and the judicial process. Much of what I learned came from an independent study I undertook which included visits to New York’s highest court, with the Court of Appeals Intensive seminar, in my last semester at the law school. Those visits gave me the opportunity to observe oral arguments and listen to Court of Appeals judges who spent time with the class explaining what they perceive their role to be as Judges on the high court.
While speaking to our class, Chief Judge Lippman made an interesting point about the effect advances in technology have on a judge’s role in shaping or interpreting law. Chief Judge Lippman stressed the importance of how societal changes, technological advances, and other policy factors should all be considered when a judge, particularly on a state’s high court, is deciding an issue.
Take for example the Matter of Empire Center for New York State Policy v. New York State Teachers' Retirement System case (23 NY3d 438 [2014]), where at issue was the disclosure of the names of public employees who received a pension from the state. To de-emphasize the privacy concerns, some of the judges were making a point through their questioning that most of the information that was sought to remain exempt from disclosure might already be searchable on the internet. The judges seemed to be aware of the privacy concerns, but also cognizant of the lower expectations of privacy people now have with the advent of Facebook, Twitter, and other social media sites. This balance between the cherished right to be “let alone” and the emerging world of social media reminded me of one of Chief Judge Lippman’s most famous and oft cited rationales.
