The Importance of Strategic Concession in Legal Argumentation
In the legal profession, the advocacy for clients often involves taking strong stances—sometimes even extreme ones. While it’s important for lawyers to represent their clients diligently, there are instances where acknowledging the strengths and weaknesses of arguments can lead to more favorable outcomes in court.
Understanding the Role of Concession
Conceding points at oral arguments may appear counterintuitive to many lawyers. The fear of presenting oneself as weak can prevent professionals from acknowledging arguments with less merit. However, judges tend to appreciate when lawyers exhibit reasonable judgment by conceding their weaker points, which contributes to a more efficient judicial process.
Case Study 1: Effectively Conceding Weak Arguments
In an early experience, one lawyer filed a motion aimed at dismissing four claims in a complaint. Specifically, two claims were pivotal for dismissal, whereas the other two had arguable merit that could justify their continuation. During oral arguments, rather than insisting on the dismissal of all claims, the lawyer recognized the merit in retaining some, stating:
“I believe that two causes of action merit dismissal, yet I understand if the court opts to keep the others in play.”
This approach not only resonated positively with the judge but also resulted in the dismissal of one crucial cause of action that benefited the client, highlighting how strategic concession can yield positive results.
Case Study 2: Navigating Procedural Errors
In another case involving a motion to dismiss based on procedural errors by the opposing party, the lawyer had a strong basis for dismissal grounded in precedent. However, during oral arguments, the judge sought clarity:
“Can the procedural mistakes be corrected, or is dismissal the only option?”
In response, the lawyer opted for transparency in the ambiguity of the case law, indicating that although dismissal might benefit the client, there were remedial possibilities. By not taking a rigid stance, the lawyer enabled the judge to consider the broader implications of procedural correctness, ultimately fostering goodwill.
The Takeaway: Confidence Through Reasonableness
Attorneys frequently grapple with the instinct to argue aggressively for every aspect of their cases. Nevertheless, the practice of conceding less significant points can cultivate goodwill with judges—a strategic move that can lead to more favorable rulings. Recognizing when to yield not only demonstrates a lawyer’s reasonableness but also helps to streamline discussions, allowing the focus to remain on the more pressing issues at hand.
Conclusion
Lawyers are urged to develop the ability to concede points when warranted. Though it might seem like a sign of weakness, this practice often illustrates a lawyer’s sound judgment and enhances their credibility in the eyes of the court. By advocating for transparency and reason, legal professionals can achieve success while promoting fair trials.
For further insights on legal representation strategies, you can reach out to Jordan Rothman, a partner at The Rothman Law Firm, via email at [email protected].
