Because the Schindler's attorney didn't bring a de novo pleading of the case from the start; he merely appealed the previous rulings.
I find it impossible to believe that the Schindlers' attorney "refused to conduct" a de novo hearing.
It's what he did. Maybe he didn't intend to do so, but it's what he did.
That would make absolutely no sense at all. (And the lawyers aren't in a position to "conduct" anything, anyway. They merely present, and the court conducts, as I understand it.)
OK, if you wish to start playing language Nazi, he didn't present the case as a new case. And the courts can't reach beyond his filing. They can't look at a case de novo if it's framed as an appeal of an existing case.
If you meant to say that the Schindlers' attorney failed on a technical point, and didn't frame the pleading correctly, then that's plausible.
Being an effective lawyer is all about the technicalities.
You may not think highly of the skills of the Schindlers' attorneys, but they're not absolute idiots.
Then why did they simply rehash the appeals that they'd already lost, instead of presenting the case as if there had been no previous rulings (which is what de novo means)?
Nor would they do anything so obviously counter to the interests of their clients.
You are incorrect; they did do something so obviously counter to the interests of their clients.
Any opinions an "incorrect" judge issues are therefore "legalistic BS", and warrant the overthrow of the government. There's only ONE "approved" outcome, remember?