let's start with justice pigott spin agenda rely on the litigants. let me make a suggestion or a thought. because i made this mistake all the time when i was a lawyer, and that's where lying on the medical records for with the medical records say. so i put a note that the doctor did a test and this, i had no idea what the test was. but that aside, when we get them and you are trying to decide these things, we don't know that stuff, and i think lawyers that take the time to realize that these judges by we don't know mark any more medicine than i do or don't know any more about coefficient of friction than i do, to explain those and to teach them a better is a great idea. we don't have a lot of time, nor do have a lot in commission to get to my spectacle educators sells on many of the sink the we are trying to fill the focus on the law. what you can do is defeat or so without knowing it by allowing the judges that i don't know what he's talking about here, but that doesn't fit within that case for some and you find yourself losing because somebody is t

let's start with justice pigott. >> i genuinely rely on the litigant. i made this mistake all the time when i was a lawyer. and that is relying on the medical records for what to medical records say. i put in there that the doctor did a baginski test and i had no idea what it dubinsky test, which is tickling the bottom of your foot by the way. when we get them in you trying to decide these things, we don't know that death. and i think lawyers to take the time to realize that these judges probably don't know any more medicine than i do in a coefficient of friction than i do to explain those entities are not better is a great idea. we don't have a lot of time nor do we have a lot of inclination to coeducation yourselves because we are trying to focus on the law. what you can do is defeat yourself without even knowing it by allowing a judge to say i don't know what he's talking about, but that doesn't fit within the case in the finder's up losing because somebody is too lazy to read the signs, which is probably me or someone else. so i think it is a good i

to help us answer these and related questions, our panel today includes judge eugene pigott jr. of the new york court of appeals, that state's highest court; justice mark martinover the north carolina supreme court; judge brett kavanaugh, u.s. court of appeals for the d.c. circuit, and chief judge edith jones of the u.s. court of appeals for the fifth circuit. our moderator today is kirsten castaneda, she is senior counsel at locke did el llp, she was a hatten w. sumners scholar, and she's a member of the executive board of the council of appellate lawyers. please join me in welcoming this outstanding, distinguished panel. [applause] >> thank you so much for being here today with us for our talk about judicial decision making. before we begin on this veterans day, i would like to take a moment to remember all those who have served our country in the u.s. armed forces and all of our men and women in uniform today. thank you for your service. [applause] i want to start with a question to kind of bridge between lawyering and judging. before you became a judge when you were a lawyer

. >> justice pigott, how does that process work? >> about the same period in the appellate divisions in the four in new york, the judges seem to me always pull more in harness and they are much more prepared at the time of oral argument -- i shouldn't say prepared, but they tend to know where they are going as an appellate court. we like the rest of talk about cases before him. we go back next monday i'm very excited i can almost guess where some of my colleagues will be in these cases and i of course i worked with my law clerks. we have a rather staid traditional process of who reports a case and conference venue in such of there be a dissent to tax in what order and then depending on where everyone is lining up, who writes the majority, who writes the dissent and if there is a concurrence or not. so the rather arcane process. i think john jay was their first chief judge. i think he started all of that. >> one thing that i'm interested to know is whether you consider the broader implications of the case, the broader implications of