Letter: Murphy lawyer’s motion defended

Friday, Jan. 4, 2002 | 4:52 a.m.

Jeff German, in his Dec. 23 column, criticizes Alan Dershowitz for advising the Nevada Supreme Court of his teaching schedule.

He fails to inform the readers that the information was provided as part of a motion requesting oral argument. The motion is one required by the court if oral argument is desired, and one that I -- not Mr. Dershowitz -- drafted. I file this kind of motion or otherwise provide this kind of information in virtually every case in which I am involved.

Before filing the motion, I called Mr. Dershowitz to ascertain his schedule, and included that information in the motion. In my experience, courts appreciate being told of any scheduling problems well in advance. Such information affords the court the greatest flexibility in arranging its schedule. It was the purpose of this motion to provide that information in a respectful manner.

Obviously, Mr. Dershowitz will accommodate himself to the court's busy schedule and to any argument date the court may set, even if it means that he has to reschedule classes to do so, but he believes that he owes it to his students to try to avoid doing that, if possible. In our experience, courts can generally accommodate reasonable scheduling requests made in advance.

If Mr. German had bothered to do research for his article, rather than simply level a mean ad hominem attack, he would have discovered that these requests are routine all over the country. Alan Dershowitz and I have the highest respect for the Nevada Supreme Court, and ask for nothing that is not routinely asked for by other lawyers.

VICTORIA B. EIGER New York