When an individual loses a case, he or she may make the decision to appeal it.  Many individuals view this as a second chance to win.  However, the appellate process is very different from the trial process.

One way that the appellate process is different is that it usually does not involve the physical presence of a lawyer like the trial process does.  Many appeals are decided by the review of a written brief only.  If the court accepts a request for oral argument, an attorney may then be involved.  Rather than presenting a case, though, the attorney instead responds to a series of questions by a judge or panel of judges.  The other side does the same.  A trial attorney is often physically present for the trial, as well as during multiple motions made and hearings scheduled before the trial.  In this sense, it is more important that an appellate attorney be able to have strong written communication skills and an ability to think on his or her feet, as opposed to the charm that may make a successful trial attorney.

Another important distinction between trial and appellate cases is the type of information that is shared with the court.  In an appellate case, the court reviews the official record.  This in contrast to a trial attorney presenting evidence during the trial.  The appellate attorney does not present evidence like he or she does during the trial process.  Instead, the appellate attorney focuses on showing that the trial court made some type of error.  He or she cites to such errors that are part of the official record.

Whereas a trial court often includes a jury to decide the case, an appellate court’s decisions are only reached by a judge or panel of judges.