L.A.R. 34.1: In General

(a) The court will allow oral argument in all cases unless the panel, after examination of the briefs and records or appendices, is unanimously of the opinion that oral argument is not needed.

(b) Any party to the appeal has the right to file a statement with the court setting forth the reasons why, in the party's opinion, oral argument should be heard. Such statement must be filed with the clerk within 7 days after the filing of appellee's or respondent's brief. The request must set forth the amount of argument time sought.

(c) In certain appeals, the clerk will inform the parties by letter of a particular issue(s) that the panel wishes the parties to address.

(d) The court will grant a motion requesting rescheduling of the argument only where the moving party shows extraordinary circumstances.

(e) A party may request oral argument by video-conference. Such a request may be made by calling the clerk’s office. Counsel must notify all opposing sides that a request for video-conference has been made. Generally, a request for oral argument by video-conference should be made when the party is notified of the calendaring of the case. In any case, a request for oral argument by video must be made as soon as possible after counsel knows that a video-conference is needed. Granting of the request is at the Court’s discretion.

Because the panels are constituted in advance for a specific sitting, rescheduling of an argument may result in a second panel being assigned an appeal when one panel has already performed the necessary study of the briefs and appendix. Alternatively, it may result in members of the panel having to travel to Philadelphia at additional government expense, disrupting previously established schedules. Such needless waste of judicial resources underlies this court's precedent of declining to reschedule except upon a showing of extraordinary circumstances. Subsection (c), adopted in 1995, contains a provision that counsel in certain cases will be notified prior to the oral argument of a particular issue, if any, that is of concern to the court. The portions of prior Court Rule 12.6 that were repetitive of FRAP were deleted in 1995. Otherwise no substantive change from prior Court Rule 12.6 is intended. The rule was revised and simplified in 2000 and 2008.