Skip to Content

The Air of Preservation Is Now Filled With “Specific” Arguments

I Object! TipsTo win, trial lawyers must master the art of persuasion. But when they lose, they are tested by their mastery of the art of preservation. As standards of review in appellate courts have become increasingly demanding, preservation often requires coordination with your appellate attorney.

It used to be safe for trial lawyers to preserve “issues” for appeal. Appellate lawyers could then refine those issues with more detailed arguments in their briefs. But increasingly, appellate judges are rejecting this approach. The evolution began in criminal cases. For example, the Florida Supreme Court in Steinhorst v. State, 412 So. 2d 332, 338 (Fla. 1982) held that an “argument” was not “cognizable” unless “the specific contention” was argued in the trial court. Now, even civil appeals in Florida are often rejected because the “specific” legal argument was not made below.

The Eleventh Circuit still allows “new arguments relating to preserved claims” to be reviewed on appeal. Black v. Wigington, 811 F.3d 1259, 1268–69 (11th Cir. 2016). But the Third Circuit has written a scholarly opinion distinguishing “issues” from “arguments” and concluding that “arguments” must be preserved with “exacting” “particularity.” U.S. v. Joseph, 730 F.3d 336 (3d Cir. 2013).

The point is that trial lawyers must assume that their issues will need to be argued as effectively in the trial court as in the appellate court.

Preservation Issue(s):

  • Increasingly appellate courts expect to hear the identical argument from appellate counsel that trial counsel made below. 
  • This means trial counsel needs to coordinate with appellate counsel early.


Not every case can justify an appellate lawyer on the trial team. But most cases have strategic events that warrant at least a short consult with your appellate lawyer, or at least with another legal mind. Identify those strategic events early in a case, try to specify the arguments that help you with those events, and don’t go it alone. Even when you are allowed to make an oral argument, consider filing a written argument because it will be more specific and can be prescreened by your appellate lawyer. If you are caught off guard by a critical issue, it is better to tell the court that fact and ask for a moment to reflect on a specific argument than to bluff your way through. If you lose on a critical issue and you think your argument may not be sufficiently specific, try to upgrade that argument before it is too late. Sometimes a good motion for rehearing will create the specificity you need. See Waksman Enterprises, Inc. v. Oregon Properties, Inc., 862 So. 2d 35 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003).

Related Practices
Appellate & Trial Support
©2024 Carlton Fields, P.A. Carlton Fields practices law in California through Carlton Fields, LLP. Carlton Fields publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information and educational purposes only, and should not be relied on as if it were advice about a particular fact situation. The distribution of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Carlton Fields. This publication may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please use our Contact Us form via the link below. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the firm. This site may contain hypertext links to information created and maintained by other entities. Carlton Fields does not control or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this outside information, nor is the inclusion of a link to be intended as an endorsement of those outside sites.


The information on this website is presented as a service for our clients and Internet users and is not intended to be legal advice, nor should you consider it as such. Although we welcome your inquiries, please keep in mind that merely contacting us will not establish an attorney-client relationship between us. Consequently, you should not convey any confidential information to us until a formal attorney-client relationship has been established. Please remember that electronic correspondence on the internet is not secure and that you should not include sensitive or confidential information in messages. With that in mind, we look forward to hearing from you.