Friday, May 12, 2006

Who Should Argue?

Very interesting article about whether the "solo-practioner" criminal defense lawyer should step-aside to allow a "big firm" or "experienced advocate" to argue before the Supreme Court. In fact the Supreme Court oral argument session had 22 state criminal cases this year. It seems to me that more often that not, the client wants the attorney who has fought for him to argue before the Court, regardless of where the person works or where he went to school. The question remains, however, is the solo-practioner representing the best interest of his client if he has never argued before the Supreme Court? Are the experienced folk who are trying to "take-over" these cases carnivores or justified in trying to present more articulate and persuasive arguments before the Court? Questions to ponder....

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

They are lazy letches that could care less about the client or the issue. They are interested in carreer advancement only. If they are so dedicated to the law, let them file amicus briefs on behalf of some charity or pro bono organization in the circuits.

Passion is what will win the day, not rote memorization of caselaw and facts.