Posted 10:38 AM by steve

I don't mean to single out Captain Ed; his comments about Edwards mirror many others - but I'd like to take issue with the assertion that "Edwards' success as a plaintiff's attorney shows that he can think on his feet." Maybe he is, but just maybe he isn't...

As a buyer of legal talent, in the litigation that I've (unfortunately) been involved with, the proceedings are not full of spontaneous moments. Not too many 'Perry Mason' moments, not too many 'oohs and aahs'. The proceedings unfold along a somewhat predictable pattern - both sides (should) know the arguments to be made by the other side, both sides know who the witnesses are and what they will testify to, both sides know what the physical evidence is. I believe that quick thinking on my attorney's part is less important than good preparation and their ability to understand the relevant issues (don't hire a labor attorney to handle a tax case. Here's another don't from Beldar). I want my attorney to have the ability to develop and clearly present a storyline to the judge/jury. While I won't turn down having someone in my corner who can 'think on his feet' (it is, after all, a sign of intelligence), what I really want from my attorney is for him to be the one who is better prepared - so there aren't too many of those moments. There's a reason we've all heard the adage "don't ask the question unless you already know the answer". I want my attorney to be the one who is more knowledgeable about the relevant law and case history - so they're not standing there stammering when they are supposed to be offering opposition to whatever has just been presented to the judge. I want my attorney to be able to anticipate where the other side is going and have prepared clear convincing rebuttals. I want my attorney to be able to relate to the jury.

To the skills that Edwards brings to the table tonight, 'quick thinking' may or may not be among them. To cite an example, in the case where he 'channeled a child with cerebral palsy, there's no chance that was something Edwards thought of right before he started speaking. He had thought of it long before then, he had very likely rehearsed it many, many times before the jury ever heard him. In medical malpractice cases, the doctors, nurses, patients, hospital representatives are all subjected to pretrial depositions - by the time trial opens, there's no doubt what the story line is going to be, there's not much room for one side or the other to pull off a big surprise. There's no question that Edwards was successful. But maybe that is because he did his homework, cherry picked his cases and his courtrooms, followed the script (and remember, with personal injury cases, the scripts have been honed over years and years, in thousands of cases) and used his personality and smile to connect with the jury. Maybe those skills will be enough for him tonight, maybe not.