Pennsylvania’s recent amendment to Rule 211 of the Rules of Civil Procedure appears on the surface to be a major overhaul, but a peek under the hood reveals that the change reflects prevailing law and enshrines the discretion of a trial court judge. Until January 2016, Rule 211 stated in part that “[a]ny party or the party’s attorney shall have the right to argue any motion and the court shall have the right to require oral argument.” At first glance, Rule 211 conveyed an absolute right to argue. Lawyers that regularly practice in Pennsylvania state courts, however, know that judges often denied a party’s request for oral argument on a motion. Why the discrepancy?
Learn more details on this clarification on our KnowingCorporateLitigation.com blog.