How can I convey my client’s story to the jury so that they’ll see his situation exactly like he did when he did X, Y, & Z? How can I get the jury to see that my client is just a defendant in a criminal case, but is a real person who could suffer real consequences because of X allegation? How is that 65 year-old Catholic woman sitting on the jury going to feel about my defense, whatever it is? All of the above require empathy.

There is also the possibility that the jury picks up on a “win at all cost” mentality and that would undoubtedly hurt your client. I’d rather have a juror believe that I am fighting for my client because I believe in him and his case, rather than thinking I am there just to win.

How do you empathize with an accuser who lies about your client sexually assaulting them? How do you empathize with the cop that invents the probable cause for his traffic stop out of thin air? How do you empathize with the DEA agent that you talked about in one of your posts that shoots your client and then takes the 5th so he can get his story straight with the other crooked cops? The answer is…YOU DON’T!! The only thing you should feel for that person is contempt for trying to pervert justice.

Empathy is not the ultimate goal in this business. If you have it for everyone, great. You don’t NEED it for everyone to be an effective lawyer.

Do you think a surgeon NEEDS compasion or empathy for his patients? Maybe all he cares about is another trip to St. Martin or a bigger house in the Hamptons. If he’s skilled I could give a flying fart if he cares about me as a person or understands my pain. As long as he does his job with skill I am happy.

You seem to think that without this over-arching sense of empathy for everyone you come into contact with you can’t be an effective attorney and that is just plain wrong.

Hey, HE’s the one who says “no prisoners, no matter what the cost to others” and that “everything is just collateral damage”. I’m just taking him at his word.

If Mr. Matlock wants to emulate the “take no prisoners, win at all costs, who cares about the colateral damage” school…well I’m just showing what a REAL “take no prisoners” guy looks like.
If you object to their political affiliation, well there are also go with plenty of other examples we could use. We could use Col. John Chivington, or Lt. William Calley, or General Antonio de Lopez de Santa Anna, or General Yamashita, if you want to be ecumenical about it.

My point is that a “ruthless, take no prisoners, win at all costs, ruthless to the point that everything is just collateral damage” attitude does not make you “strong” and it does not make you “tough”… it makes you a war criminal.

If this attitude has no place on a battlefield, a place where ethical constraints are somewhat looser than in other areas of human endeavour, how could it possibly be acceptable or praseworthy in a court of law?

Hey, why not just go for and advertise yourself as “The Sepp Dietrich of Litigation”? maybe “The Jürgen Stroop of the Texas Bar”?

They were both “take no prisoners, no matter what the cost to others” kind of guys, and Stroop wasn’t slowed down by concerns about “collateral damage”.

I think you have another candidate for that award you gave out yesterday Mark.

sg

Winning cases is great but waking up and looking at yourself in the mirror with a good conscious is priceless.

Here’s slightly less extreme thought experiment: Suppose that your client confesses to you that he committed a crime that someone else is on death row for? You keep your client free by letting an innocent person die.

In a real-life case here in Chicago, some lawyers let an innocent man take 25 years of a life sentence. Their seems to have been their ethical duty, and it may not meet your definition of ruthless, but it’s damned cold and brutal.