{"id":24249,"date":"2026-05-10T15:46:19","date_gmt":"2026-05-10T19:46:19","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/georgetown-law-journal\/?page_id=24249"},"modified":"2026-05-10T15:49:56","modified_gmt":"2026-05-10T19:49:56","slug":"transforming-indigent-appellate-advocacy","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/georgetown-law-journal\/in-print\/volume-114\/volume-114-issue-3-february-2026\/transforming-indigent-appellate-advocacy\/","title":{"rendered":"Transforming Indigent Appellate Advocacy"},"content":{"rendered":"

Indigent appellate advocacy has long been confined to a narrow, <\/i>technocratic model<\/i>\u2014<\/span>one that prioritizes legal expertise over client <\/i>autonomy and treats appellate cases solely as isolated legal battles <\/i>rather than opportunities for systemic change. Unlike their trial-level <\/i>counterparts, appellate attorneys representing indigent clients have <\/i>received little scholarly attention, leaving critical questions about cli<\/i>ent participation, ethical representation, and social justice largely <\/i>unexplored.<\/i><\/p>\n

This Article challenges the status quo, arguing that appellate attorneys <\/i>should rethink their role in ways that empower clients and confront the <\/i>broader injustices shaping their cases. We introduce two alternative <\/i>frameworks<\/i>\u2014<\/span>client-centered appellate representation and participatory <\/i>appellate representation<\/i>\u2014<\/span>that draw on innovations from trial-level <\/i>practice. Client-centered appellate representation encourages meaning<\/i>ful client communication, recognizes clients\u2019 holistic goals, and solicits <\/i>their input in decisionmaking. Participatory appellate representation <\/i>adapts insights from the participatory defense movement and other social <\/i>justice lawyering models, creating opportunities for appellate attorneys <\/i>to work collaboratively not only with clients, but also with their families, <\/i>communities, and grassroots organizations.<\/i><\/p>\n

These models respond to several pressing challenges in indigent appel<\/i>late practice, including structural inequity, attorney burnout, and the <\/i>erosion of trust between attorneys and clients. By adopting the models <\/i>we describe and expanding beyond the four corners of the case, appellate <\/i>attorneys can help both clients and communities challenge the systemic <\/i>conditions fueling injustices in the legal system<\/i>\u2014<\/span>broader goals that are <\/i>particularly important in times of retrenchement.<\/i><\/p>\n

This Article also grapples with the challenges of client-centered and <\/i>participatory representation, including limited resources, professional <\/i>norms, and ethical dilemmas. But it contends that implementing these <\/i>models<\/i>\u2014<\/span>whether piecemeal or wholesale<\/i>\u2014<\/span>at the appellate level is both <\/i>feasible and just.<\/i><\/p>\n

Continue reading\u00a0Transforming Indigent Appellate Advocacy<\/em><\/strong><\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\nGoldberg-and-McKee_Transforming-Indigent-Appellate-Advocacy<\/a>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Indigent appellate advocacy has long been confined to a narrow, technocratic model\u2014one that prioritizes legal expertise over client autonomy and treats appellate cases solely as isolated legal battles rather than […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":13871,"featured_media":0,"parent":24239,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"abstract.php","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_price":"","_stock":"","_tribe_ticket_header":"","_tribe_default_ticket_provider":"","_tribe_ticket_capacity":"0","_ticket_start_date":"","_ticket_end_date":"","_tribe_ticket_show_description":"","_tribe_ticket_show_not_going":false,"_tribe_ticket_use_global_stock":"","_tribe_ticket_global_stock_level":"","_global_stock_mode":"","_global_stock_cap":"","_tribe_rsvp_for_event":"","_tribe_ticket_going_count":"","_tribe_ticket_not_going_count":"","_tribe_tickets_list":"[]","_tribe_ticket_has_attendee_info_fields":false,"footnotes":"","_tec_slr_enabled":"","_tec_slr_layout":""},"class_list":["post-24249","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"acf":[],"ticketed":false,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/georgetown-law-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/24249","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/georgetown-law-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/georgetown-law-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/georgetown-law-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/13871"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/georgetown-law-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=24249"}],"version-history":[{"count":7,"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/georgetown-law-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/24249\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":24256,"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/georgetown-law-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/24249\/revisions\/24256"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/georgetown-law-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/24239"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/georgetown-law-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=24249"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}