A fundamental advantage to hiring appellate counsel is the fresh and objective prospective essential for successful appellate advocacy that such a specialist offers. "[T]rial attorneys who prosecute their own appeals * * * may have 'tunnel vision.' Having tried the case themselves, they become convinced of the merits of their cause. They may lose objectivity" (Estate of Gilkison, 65 Cal.App.4th 1443, 1449 [1998]). Although an appeal will be decided only on "the record" made in the lower court (State Farm Fire & Cas. Ins. v. LiMauro, 103 A.D.2d 514 [2nd Dept., 1984]; Knolls Cooperative Section No. 2, Inc. v. Evans Development Corp., 169 A.D.2d 690 [1st Dept., 1991]), as human nature dictates, the mind of a trial attorney "cannot free itself of matters which entered in during preparation for trial but which did not get into the record" (Hon. Paxton Blair, Appellate Briefs and Advocacy, 18 Fordham L. Rev. 30, 46-47 [1949]). Whereas, unburdened by personal knowledge, "[t]he appeals specialist views the case precisely as does the appellate court, through the little square window of the record, so to speak, and not as something viewed from the great outdoors" (id.). As New York's highest Court has observed, "[t]here is no substitute for the single-minded advocacy of appellate counsel" (People v. Emmett, 25 N.Y.2d 354, 356 [1969]).

These skills also play a important role in properly evaluating the merits of the appeal, or just particular issues, which allows the client to make an informed decision as to whether to pursue often costly appellate intervention. Appellate attorneys are familiar with what issues and arguments are likely to be successful on appeal, the trends in appellate opinions and the appellate decision making process. A client's best interests are not served by appealing an adverse decision when there is little or no chance of prevailing. "Advising a client to appeal as a matter of course is simply not the best way for an advocate to properly serve the client's interests, nor does it serve the interests of the justice system as a whole" (Hon. Fred I. Parker, U.S. Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit, Appellate Advocacy and Practice in the Second Circuit, 64 Brook. L. Rev. 457, 458 [1998]). Thus, an appellate expert's objective assessment of a matter prevents the wasting of judicial resources as well as the unnecessary expense of an appeal.

Furthermore, the burgeoning caseloads of appellate tribunals demand that only issues of serious merit be raised, even if an appeal presents a myriad of possible claims of error. Appellate counsel, dedicated to identifying and developing compelling grounds, will avoid using the judicially frowned-upon "everything but the kitchen sink" approach on appeal (Hon. Lawrence W. Pierce, U.S. Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit, Appellate Advocacy: Some Reflections From the Bench, 61 Fordham L. Rev. 829, 835 [1993]).

"Ideally, the best appellate representation for a client consists of an appellate counsel and the trial attorney working together on the appeal if they can do so cost effectively and without duplicating each other's services" (Newman, New York Appellate Practice § 7.02 [2000]). "In the end, the appeal is a collaborative effort. The trial attorney 'knows the nuances of the record - where information is. The appellate attorney takes that knowledge and applies it to get the court's attention. He knows how to frame issues and research them'" (Mauro & Nicholson, For Appeals: Trial Counsel or Specialist?, Medical Malpractice Law & Strategy, Vol. VIII, No. 7, June 1991).