John Mortimer Quotes

I noticed that this defense attorney is a very, very intelligent man, and he's very cool and he's very knowledgeable, and I think that personally I'd like to have an attorney like him.

I'm a hard headed lawyer.

I consider myself sort of like a pseudo lawyer. Like, I'm convinced I can solve every case and argue my way.

It is essential to the pure and peaceful administration of justice that all its officers keep carefully within the boundaries of their constitutional powers. Auxiliary to this, but not secondary in importance, is a due knowledge of the leading subjects for their inquiry and decision.

I'm a lawyer; I win arguments for a living.

I happen to like debating, and I like to debate like a lawyer, and I can argue any points to death, and I will.

Rhetoric is useful because truth and justice are in their nature stronger than their opposites; so that if decisions be made, not in conformity to the rule of propriety, it must have been that they have been got the better of through fault of the advocates themselves: and this is deserving reprehension.

If you want to be an orator, first get your great cause.

There are lots of similarities between being a writer and a lawyer: to tell a story to a jury, hold their attention, make them laugh, make them like you. But what makes being a barrister less satisfying than being a writer is, finally, that it's about what someone else wants you to say.

I say to my pupils, 'You can pitch me any thing you've got, but tell me why you're the only person who can write it in the world. Keep digging.'

If the case is close, 5-4, and let's say you are on the side that prevailed with the majority, there are not a lot of high-fives and back slaps. There is a moment of quiet, a moment of respect, maybe even sometimes awe in the process. We realize that one of us is going to have to write out a decision which teaches and gives reasons for what we do.

It's simply not bias for a judge to explain her reasoning in a dissent.

I'm going to be a guy who can defend a bunch of different positions.

I don't think changing minds is possible with just comedy. It's too much to expect from your own art.

It was an interesting experience to work alongside the solicitor general's team and then turn around and argue against them. You certainly grow as a lawyer from getting such a varied set of experiences.

I don't limit myself as long as the content is good.

I think there's all these unknown things you can tap into when you just leave things open, and nothing is forbidden. Then you allow yourself to mold that thing that has been created by freedom and spontaneity and flexibility. That's why I avoid limiting performances of actors and characters.

Dershowitz may be a genius in some ways, but he's not necessarily the advocate you want on your side.

I like the law. I like the part that's about reasoning, about persuasion, about telling stories, about trying to build structures that fall within rules.

Planning bores me. I like to go with the flow. Being whimsical is nice, occasionally. It keeps things fresh; there's no expectation.

Yes, I have a philosophy, and you have to come with good arguments to change that philosophy, but, if someone has a better argument than me, then I will change.

In a system of precedent, the new majority bears the weight of explaining why the constitutional vision of their predecessors was flawed and of making the case as to why theirs better captures the meaning of our fundamental law.

I am often asked what it was like to be a woman clerking for Justice Scalia. 'Much like being a man clerking for him' is my easy answer. Justice Scalia believed in one simple principle: That law came to the court as an 'is,' not an 'ought.'

As producers, you always have to go with the flow and be ready to embrace change, and drama and whatever happens.

Good lawyering is usually cerebral and impersonally. You can convince a judge with a mastery of facts, detail, and precedent - not a story from the gut about how you feel a certain way.