Short answer. Not unless the court authorizes it. Rule 49, Section 2 generally limits oral argument to one counsel per party, and leaves the time allotted, the order of argument, and all related matters to the court's direction. A party planning to split argument time between two lawyers should seek that authorization well before the hearing date.

What the law says

Unless authorized by the court, only one counsel may argue for a party. The duration allowed for each party, the sequence of the argumentation, and all other related matters shall be as directed by the court.

Rule 49, Section 2 — Conduct of oral argument. Read the full provision →

One counsel per party, unless the court says otherwise

Section 2 sets a default rule for who may speak during oral argument. Unless authorized by the court, only one counsel may argue for a party. A team of lawyers cannot simply divide the argument time among themselves without the court's authorization to do so, so a party planning to have more than one lawyer speak should seek that authorization ahead of the hearing.

Duration and sequence are the court's call

Beyond who may argue, the mechanics of the session are also left to the court: the duration allowed for each party, the sequence of the argumentation, and all other related matters shall be as directed by the court. Parties should not assume a fixed, universal format applies — the specifics come from the court's own direction for that particular argument.

Why counsel should confirm the ground rules beforehand

Because both the number of counsel who may speak and the time and order of argument are set by the court rather than by fixed rule, counsel preparing for oral argument should confirm these details in advance from whatever order or notice the court issues, rather than assume a standard format will apply across every case the court hears, since the allotted time can vary considerably from one hearing to the next.

What happens without prior authorization

If a party shows up expecting two or more lawyers to argue without having secured the court's authorization beforehand, the default under Section 2 controls: only one of them may actually argue. Sorting out who that will be at the hearing itself, rather than in advance, wastes the limited time allotted and can leave a team unprepared for which lawyer is actually expected to speak on the party's behalf before the panel of justices.

Who this limit binds and what it does not cover

Section 2 applies per party, not per case — in a multi-party appeal, each side is separately held to the one-counsel default unless that particular party secured its own authorization for more. The provision governs only who may speak during the argument itself; it says nothing about how many lawyers may sit at counsel table or assist behind the scenes, since the restriction is on arguing, not on presence. A party that violates the default by having an unauthorized second counsel attempt to argue does not forfeit the case over it, but the court retains full authority to stop the unauthorized lawyer and confine the argument to whichever counsel is properly recognized.

Related provisions

Note. Statute text quoted on this page is reproduced from the official enactment and is linked to the full provision. The explanation around it is general legal information from Vivas & Nobles Law Office, not legal advice. Whether it applies to your situation depends on facts only a lawyer reviewing them can assess.