via
Getty)
People
generally
understand
that
lawyers
often
need
to
take
extreme
—
perhaps
unreasonable
—
positions
to
advocate
for
clients. Of
course,
everyone
deserves
diligent
representation,
and
clients
often
do
not
like
to
see
their
lawyers
conceding
points
on
any
issues. However,
judges
usually
do
not
take
it
kindly
when
a
lawyer
refuses
to
concede
points
even
when
presented
with
overwhelming
evidence
that
a
point
is
flawed. Sometimes,
lawyers
should
feel
comfortable
conceding
points
at
oral
arguments,
since
this
might
earn
an
attorney
goodwill
with
a
judge,
and
help
the
judge
focus
on
arguments
that
might
better
serve
a
client.
Earlier
in
my
career,
I
filed
a
motion
to
dismiss
four
causes
of
action
in
a
given
complaint. Two
causes
of
action
I
really
needed
to
get
dismissed
and
had
the
strongest
arguments
in
favor
of
dismissal. The
other
two
causes
of
action
were
not
as
essential
to
get
dismissed,
and
some
argument
could
be
made
in
favor
of
dismissal
and
for
keeping
these
causes
of
action
in
the
case. Most
lawyers
probably
would
not
have
conceded
points
and
would
have
simply
argued
that
all
four
causes
of
action
should
be
dismissed.
However,
at
oral
argument,
I
explicitly
told
the
judge
that
I
thought
that
two
of
the
causes
of
action
really
warranted
dismissal
and
a
more
thorough
look
from
the
court
and
that
I
understood
if
the
court
did
not
want
to
dismiss
the
other
causes
of
action. The
judge
literally
smiled
at
my
points,
since
I
made
the
judge’s
job
a
lot
easier,
and
the
judge
knew
that
I
was
a
reasonable
lawyer
who
knew
when
some
of
the
client’s
arguments
had
deficiencies. The
court
ended
up
dismissing
one
of
the
causes
of
action,
the
one
I
really
needed
to
get
dismissed
to
promote
my
client’s
interests. It
is
very
difficult
to
get
any
causes
of
action
dismissed
in
the
relevant
venue,
so
this
was
a
solid
result
for
the
client.
Another
time,
I
argued
a
motion
to
dismiss
in
which
I
asserted
that
the
case
needed
to
be
dismissed
due
to
procedural
errors
made
by
my
adversary.
I
cited
a
bunch
of
cases
in
my
papers
that
held
that
actions
needed
to
be
dismissed
if
such
procedural
mistakes
were
made. However,
there
were
other,
nonbinding
authorities
that
suggested
procedural
mistakes
were
correctable
in
certain
situations.
At
oral
arguments,
the
judge
flatly
asked
if
the
procedural
mistake
could
be
corrected
or
if
dismissal
was
the
only
course
of
action. Although
it
would
have
benefited
my
client
more
if
the
case
was
dismissed,
I
informed
the
court
that
the
caselaw
was
a
little
unclear
and,
generally,
it
was
left
to
the
discretion
of
the
court.
I
then
related
that
it
might
be
better
to
just
dismiss
the
case
so
that
the
plaintiff
could
start
over
fresh
with
a
new
action. If
the
judge
let
the
case
continue
with
such
procedural
mistakes,
it
could
open
the
matter
up
to
an
appeal.
The
judge
seemed
appreciative
that
I
did
not
take
a
strong
position
on
whether
the
case
needed
to
be
dismissed. Providing
practical
arguments
and
showing
that
I
was
reasonable
ended
up
yielding
a
solid
result
for
my
client. At
the
same
argument,
my
adversary
refused
to
concede
a
point
notwithstanding
overwhelming
logic
advanced
by
the
judge,
and
I
could
see
that
this
was
not
taken
kindly
by
the
court.
All
told,
lawyers
might
have
an
instinct
not
to
concede
any
points
since
this
might
show
weakness
in
front
of
a
court
and
because
judges
might
side
with
lawyers
who
appear
more
confident
in
their
positions. However,
conceding
weaker
arguments
can
create
goodwill
with
judges
that
can
benefit
clients
during
oral
arguments.
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].