A good lawyer knows the law; a clever one takes the judge to lunch.
The good lawyer is the great salesman.
Cagey trial lawyers have figured out there's a pretty good likelihood their case - no matter what its merit - will literally get its day in court because of favorable judges.
When you have the facts on your side, argue the facts. When you have the law on your side, argue the law. When you have neither, holler.
As a lawyer, I could engage in killer litigation with the best of them. It was war, after all.
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.
The reality is, when you're representing someone that's guilty, you're in the position of taking that position.
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.
Any good trial lawyer knows that if you've got one credible expert or scientific study, then you can let the jury decide.
You never know when you lose a case whether it was because the facts were against you, or because the judges had already made up their minds, or if you could have done something differently.
I had 24 hours to prepare. If this were a criminal case 5 or 6 lawyers would have weeks to prepare.
F. Lee Bailey had been an inspiration to me. It was my desire to have him behind the scenes, to rely on his great wisdom and his brainpower, but I did not feel he should be in the courtroom.
When I was a prosecutor in San Francisco I would get advice on trying cases from public defenders and defense attorneys.
Criminal law is one of the few professions where the client buys someone else's luck. The luck of most people is strictly non-transferrable. But a good criminal lawyer can sell all his luck to a client, and the more luck he sells the more he has to sell.
I'm a hard headed lawyer.
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.
I have a pretty good record of winning in court.
I had no money nor friends to prepare for the trial till last night.
What makes for a good argument, at bottom, is being more prepared than anyone else in that courtroom, and being willing to fight to tell your client's story - the story of why the right view of the law and my client's interests are one and the same.
I consider myself sort of like a pseudo lawyer. Like, I'm convinced I can solve every case and argue my way.
The law will argue anything, with anybody who will pay the law for the use of its brains and its time.
Knowing the law is not much help for an advocate. In fact, it's a bit of a disadvantage, cramps your style.
The only thing the defense has to do is take care of the client and see to it that they attack every weak spot on the prosecution's case. It's up to the judge to make sure that they don't pull any fast ones.
Bluster, sputter, question, cavil; but be sure your argument be intricate enough to confound the court.
Any litigator will tell you that adding to your legal team on the eve of trial most likely will not produce better lawyering but, rather, chaos.
