I figure most of the legal theories have been around a long time and are probably taught to most law students. So what makes the top lawyers worth paying top dollar?
What one quality makes a great attorney?
- Thread starter Bird222
- Start date
SearchMaster
Diamond Member
- Jun 6, 2002
- 7,791
- 114
- 106
There are many different specialties under the "attorney" umbrella - what makes a great litigator is not necessarily what makes a great family court attorney which is not necessarily what makes a great intellectual property attorney, etc. etc.
brianmanahan
Lifer
- Sep 2, 2006
- 24,634
- 6,014
- 136
MrSquished
Lifer
- Jan 14, 2013
- 26,067
- 24,397
- 136
TwiceOver
Lifer
- Dec 20, 2002
- 13,544
- 44
- 91
shortylickens
No Lifer
- Jul 15, 2003
- 80,287
- 17,081
- 136
I can't tell ya never had a good one, I hear money makes them better. One time I had a public defender he smelled like alcohol at 9am and did nothing but encourage me to plead out. The judge didn't want to hear my offer of reporting a drunk driver in exchange for freedom.
MagnusTheBrewer
IN MEMORIAM
- Jun 19, 2004
- 24,122
- 1,594
- 126
brianmanahan
Lifer
- Sep 2, 2006
- 24,634
- 6,014
- 136
MagnusTheBrewer
IN MEMORIAM
- Jun 19, 2004
- 24,122
- 1,594
- 126
Red Squirrel
No Lifer
Super good knowledge of law and specifics about each law(obviously) so you can cite stuff at a whim but also knowing all the tiny little details, and being able to see details in every situations so you can apply them to you/your client's favour, details that can perhaps change a cut and dry case around that you'd otherwise lose.
Also no soul is definitely a plus especially when it comes to lawsuit, IP lawyers etc. A certain situation/lawsuit may be completely immoral to pursue but according to the law you can still do it so you need to completely drop the moral aspect.
Come to think of it, I'm surprised there arn't more ginger lawyers.
Also no soul is definitely a plus especially when it comes to lawsuit, IP lawyers etc. A certain situation/lawsuit may be completely immoral to pursue but according to the law you can still do it so you need to completely drop the moral aspect.
Come to think of it, I'm surprised there arn't more ginger lawyers.
Persuasiveness and the ability to come up with an alternative explanation for the evidence and the ability to thoroughly examine the evidence and find any flaws in the prosecutions case.
Jeeebus
Diamond Member
- Aug 29, 2006
- 9,181
- 901
- 126
This is the only legitimate answer I've seen thus far. I litigate business disputes. The skill set that helps me succeed is different than those who litigate personal injury cases, those who do mergers/acquisitions, IP lawyers, etc. There is no "one" magical quality that makes a great lawyer. I worked at a top 20 law firm where I was billing at $700/hr and partners were $1100/hr +. Were people there smart/well educated? Sure. Were they the "best" litigators I've ever met? No.
For what I do (generally, complex business/bankruptcy disputes), I'd say it's part natural talent, part training. You can give someone all the education/training in the world, but if they can't stand on their feet and be persuasive in answering questions from a judge, success isn't happening. There are others that are amazing/persuasive writers, but throw up at the thought of arguing in court.
So you can't really say personality, training, speech, etc. is the "one" quality that makes a great lawyer. Even in my specific field there are dozens of qualities that are relevant, without any one jumping out at me as most important.
This would be an easier question if you asked what makes a terrible lawyer. Unfortunately, they far outnumber the great ones.
x26
Senior member
- Sep 17, 2007
- 734
- 15
- 81
I read in Glenn Greenwald's bio that he was a really energetic and tireless researcher of facts, and whenever he showed up in court the other side would just sorta sigh and get overwhelmed by it all.
So being really dogged and determined is probably the most important thing.
So being really dogged and determined is probably the most important thing.
Fardringle
Diamond Member
- Oct 23, 2000
- 9,200
- 765
- 126
Competency. Regardless of any other traits or knowledge (or lack thereof), if the lawyer can't do the job and win their cases, then they aren't a good lawyer.
Sadly true. A lawyer friend once told me: "Not all lawyers are unscrupulous, dishonest, greedy parasites. But those 99% make the rest of us look bad."
monkeydelmagico
Diamond Member
- Nov 16, 2011
- 3,961
- 145
- 106
Sho'Nuff
Diamond Member
- Jul 12, 2007
- 6,211
- 121
- 106
Second vote for searchmaster's response as the only legit one yet.
I am an IP attorney. Within my specialty there are two sub-specialties - client counseling/prosecution, and litigation (enforcement). They require vastly different skill sets. Both types need to be able to write effectively and persuasively. Litigators have a little easier job in that regard, in that their writings are for a more limited audience. I.e., they typically write for a judge or jury. In contrast, patent prosecutors write patent applications for three different audiences - the public, a USPTO examiner, and the court. Both must also know and understand the law, though prosecutors generally need to know a little less of it than litigators.
Apart from being able to write and knowledge of the law, patent prosecutors must be smart and possess a highly flexible mind. I've been working in the field for 15+ years and I have never written a case that was "right up my alley" from a technical standpoint. I live and die by my ability to quickly understand and assess new technology, and my ability to have cogent conversations with inventors and clients. Any patent prosecution attorney who lacks those skills will be significantly limited in the type of technology they can work on, and therefore only good in large law firms who have a large client base in that area. Patent prosecution attorneys also have to have the ability to perceive and understand potential future problems and address them in the documents they prepare.
In contrast to prosecutors, patent litigators are primarily detectives and look backwards at cases for any problems/issues that help their client's case. Thus, critical skills for patent litigators include knowledge of the law, persuasive writing, and extreme attention to detail. An excellent work ethic and the ability to work in a team based environment also helps a lot.
As for attorneys in general, if I had to pinpoint one necessary skill that delimits good attorneys from bad, its the ability to listen and understand what a potential client wants. You would not beleive how many attorneys lack that basic skill.
I am an IP attorney. Within my specialty there are two sub-specialties - client counseling/prosecution, and litigation (enforcement). They require vastly different skill sets. Both types need to be able to write effectively and persuasively. Litigators have a little easier job in that regard, in that their writings are for a more limited audience. I.e., they typically write for a judge or jury. In contrast, patent prosecutors write patent applications for three different audiences - the public, a USPTO examiner, and the court. Both must also know and understand the law, though prosecutors generally need to know a little less of it than litigators.
Apart from being able to write and knowledge of the law, patent prosecutors must be smart and possess a highly flexible mind. I've been working in the field for 15+ years and I have never written a case that was "right up my alley" from a technical standpoint. I live and die by my ability to quickly understand and assess new technology, and my ability to have cogent conversations with inventors and clients. Any patent prosecution attorney who lacks those skills will be significantly limited in the type of technology they can work on, and therefore only good in large law firms who have a large client base in that area. Patent prosecution attorneys also have to have the ability to perceive and understand potential future problems and address them in the documents they prepare.
In contrast to prosecutors, patent litigators are primarily detectives and look backwards at cases for any problems/issues that help their client's case. Thus, critical skills for patent litigators include knowledge of the law, persuasive writing, and extreme attention to detail. An excellent work ethic and the ability to work in a team based environment also helps a lot.
As for attorneys in general, if I had to pinpoint one necessary skill that delimits good attorneys from bad, its the ability to listen and understand what a potential client wants. You would not beleive how many attorneys lack that basic skill.
dullard
Elite Member
- May 21, 2001
- 26,066
- 4,712
- 126
Time.
To me, the key difference between a good attorney and a bad one is time. After having dealt with a slew of both good and bad attorneys, I've learned that I would much rather pay $500 an hour for 8 hours than $250 an hour for 2 hours if I truly need an attorney.
A good negotiator will have already formed solid answers to anything you come up with in the negotiations. A bad negotiator will have to think about it or will have to ask the client and come back later, which just makes them wishy-washy and gives the other side an opening. But it takes time to pre-analyze all possible negotiation points. Conversely, a bad negotiator will try to negotiate whatever you want while a good one will explain why some points aren't worth fighting and other issues are highly important for to optimize your total wins (that takes time).
A good patent attorney will analyze your patent application from all viewpoints. Is what is written good, but also is what is written complete and sufficient? That takes twice the time as just analyzing either single aspect. Is this going to pass both the patent office and a judge/jury? That takes twice the time to answer.
A public defender is lucky to have 30 minutes to think about your case. A good defense attorney will thoroughly research all aspects of your case, but also investigate the other side and even possibly the judge. I have a good friend who used to do these investigations. For example, they had a client who was busted for growing pot in his house due to the police noticing a large spike in electricity usage to get the warrant to search the house. My friend investigated the judge's electricity usage to show that the judge himself should have been under investigation for a similar energy spike. The judge after seeing that evidence agreed that the police had no reason to get a warrant in the first place and the client was set free. No public defender has the time to research the judge's historical electricity usage.
I could go on and on. In each case, the attorney that had the time did far better in my viewpoint. Sure, it'll cost you. It will cost you both per hour and on number of hours. But if you truly need an attorney, that time is well worth the price. The good attorneys are your slaves and fight for you with their every waking moment. Bad attorneys do just enough of the minimal work so they can get the next sucker in their door in a large carousel of clients.
To me, the key difference between a good attorney and a bad one is time. After having dealt with a slew of both good and bad attorneys, I've learned that I would much rather pay $500 an hour for 8 hours than $250 an hour for 2 hours if I truly need an attorney.
A good negotiator will have already formed solid answers to anything you come up with in the negotiations. A bad negotiator will have to think about it or will have to ask the client and come back later, which just makes them wishy-washy and gives the other side an opening. But it takes time to pre-analyze all possible negotiation points. Conversely, a bad negotiator will try to negotiate whatever you want while a good one will explain why some points aren't worth fighting and other issues are highly important for to optimize your total wins (that takes time).
A good patent attorney will analyze your patent application from all viewpoints. Is what is written good, but also is what is written complete and sufficient? That takes twice the time as just analyzing either single aspect. Is this going to pass both the patent office and a judge/jury? That takes twice the time to answer.
A public defender is lucky to have 30 minutes to think about your case. A good defense attorney will thoroughly research all aspects of your case, but also investigate the other side and even possibly the judge. I have a good friend who used to do these investigations. For example, they had a client who was busted for growing pot in his house due to the police noticing a large spike in electricity usage to get the warrant to search the house. My friend investigated the judge's electricity usage to show that the judge himself should have been under investigation for a similar energy spike. The judge after seeing that evidence agreed that the police had no reason to get a warrant in the first place and the client was set free. No public defender has the time to research the judge's historical electricity usage.
I could go on and on. In each case, the attorney that had the time did far better in my viewpoint. Sure, it'll cost you. It will cost you both per hour and on number of hours. But if you truly need an attorney, that time is well worth the price. The good attorneys are your slaves and fight for you with their every waking moment. Bad attorneys do just enough of the minimal work so they can get the next sucker in their door in a large carousel of clients.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter