Two recent letter decisions provide practice tips from the Chancellor for Chancery practitioners regarding coordinating with non-Delaware lawyers working on Chancery cases, as well as nuances of contacting chambers for scheduling purposes. In the matter styled In re SwervePay Holdings Acquisition, LLC, C.A. No. 2021-0446-KSJM (Del. Ch. Oct. 21, 2024), the court provided instruction for non-Delaware lawyers working with Delaware lawyers as follows:
- The court advised that non-Delaware lawyers should “allow the Delaware attorneys to advise on all aspects of [the] matter, including the relevant deadlines, the need to meet them, and the need to extend basic courtesies like brief extensions when requested.”
- “… it also bears reminding that non-Delaware attorneys should not dump their brief on their Delaware friends at the last minute.”
See generally Guidelines for Practicing in the Court of Chancery published by the Court.
In Anchorage Police & Fire Retirement Systems, et al. v. Adolf, C.A. No. 2024-0354-KSJM (Del. Ch. Oct. 22, 2024), the Chancellor provided protocols for nuances of scheduling that might be regarded as unwritten rules and insights into how the court schedules hearings.
The court instructed that hearings are scheduled on motions in 90-minute blocks. The court added that if a party needs more than 90 minutes to present a motion “that it is incumbent on that party to request more time through a motion or letter on the docket filed in advance of a hearing.” Slip op. at 2.
The court also informed the parties that when calling chambers for scheduling, the litigants should assume that the Chancellor’s assistant “has a better understanding” of the Chancellor’s schedule, and simply because there is nothing on the docket does not mean that the Chancellor is available at that time.