Most
people
understand
that
criminal
defense
lawyers
should
not
be
judged
when
they
make
every
argument
available
to
them
in
order
to
defend
their
clients.
Even
if
lawyers
make
arguments
on
behalf
of
criminal
defendants
that
involve
procedural
mistakes
and
small
errors,
most
people
understand
that
this
is
important
so
that
clients
get
the
best
defense
possible.
However,
in
the
civil
context,
sometimes
parties
and
even
lawyers
do
not
cut
other
lawyers
slack
when
they
use
procedural
errors
and
similar
arguments
to
defend
clients.
Nevertheless,
lawyers
who
employ
these
tactics
should
not
have
it
held
against
them,
since
this
is
usually
just
part
of
the
civil
justice
process.
Throughout
my
career,
I
have
developed
certain
tactics
to
defend
my
clients
in
the
various
types
of
lawsuits
I
frequently
encounter.
For
instance,
some
jurisdictions
in
which
I
practice
require
extra
steps
to
validate
affidavits
that
are
notarized
outside
the
jurisdiction.
If
lawyers
do
not
follow
the
correct
procedure,
I
may
use
this
deficiency
to
defend
my
client.
In
addition,
in
a
jurisdiction
in
which
I
practice,
certain
types
of
businesses
need
to
publish
certain
information
about
the
company
in
newspapers
in
order
to
finalize
their
organization
process.
If
they
do
not
complete
this
step,
the
business
cannot
sue,
and
I
can
get
a
lawsuit
dismissed
on
that
basis.
In
other
circumstances,
I
might
challenge
service
of
process
if
a
lawyer
tried
to
effectuate
service
through
the
mail
or
other
insufficient
means
without
going
through
the
process
outlines
by
law.
Sometimes,
I
might
also
try
to
get
certain
causes
of
actions
dismissed
since
they
are
duplicative
of
other
causes
of
action
that
are
also
included
in
a
given
complaint.
I
can
usually
use
various
other
procedural
issues
to
my
advantage
when
defending
my
clients.
Often,
adversaries
do
not
take
kindly
to
such
tactics.
In
certain
circumstances,
I
get
accused
of
playing
“legal
games”
in
order
to
divert
from
the
substance
of
the
matter
to
be
litigated.
In
other
circumstances,
people
accuse
me
of
being
discourteous
for
using
such
defenses
for
the
betterment
of
my
client.
I
do
not
understand
such
behavior.
When
lawyers
use
such
tactics
against
me,
I
never
accuse
the
lawyer
of
playing
“legal
games,”
and
I
understand
that
the
attorney
is
just
trying
to
do
everything
in
their
power
to
advance
a
client’s
interests.
Most
of
the
time,
I
am
happy
to
see
lawyers
advance
such
defenses
since
this
shows
me
methods
that
I
can
improve
the
way
I
practice
to
avoid
such
defenses
being
advanced
by
adversaries
in
the
future.
However,
some
lawyers
probably
get
their
egos
bruised
when
they
mess
up
some
procedural
aspect
involved
in
litigation,
and
they
do
not
like
such
mistakes
exposed
by
other
lawyers.
Rather
than
look
inward
on
ways
that
they
can
improve
their
service
to
clients,
attorneys
may
lash
out
on
adversaries
and
accuse
them
of
wrongdoing
in
how
they
conducted
themselves
during
a
case.
On
a
superficial
level,
I
understand
this
response
as
a
reaction
to
an
assault
on
the
lawyer’s
abilities,
but
attorneys
should
know
better
than
to
lash
out
in
this
way.
Civil
lawyers,
like
attorneys
who
defend
criminal
defendants,
should
benefit
from
the
assumption
that
everyone
deserves
diligent
representation,
and
lawyers
should
take
every
advantage
available
to
them
when
serving
clients.
Of
course,
lawyers
should
not
advance
frivolous
arguments
or
conduct
themselves
in
a
way
that
has
no
purpose
other
than
to
delay
the
resolution
of
a
case.
However,
lawyers
and
others
should
know
that
lawyers
must
advance
every
substantive
argument
available
to
them
even
if
this
exposes
errors
made
by
the
other
side
in
litigation.
Jordan
Rothman
is
a
partner
of
The
Rothman
Law
Firm,
a
full-service
New
York
and
New
Jersey
law
firm.
He
is
also
the
founder
of
Student
Debt
Diaries,
a
website
discussing
how
he
paid
off
his
student
loans.
You
can
reach
Jordan
through
email
at
[email protected].