Is a lawyer allowed to stop representing his client? Imagine a person accused of committing a crime hires a lawyer. After a while something happens and the lawyer decides he or she doesn't want to represent the client any more. For example: Ethical reasons: When they were hired the lawyer thought the client was innocent (e. g. he thinks the wife accuses the husband of rape just to piss him off), but in the course of the process they came to the conclusion the client is guilty (e. g. the husband actually raped his wife). Defending an innocent client was OK with the moral standars of the lawyer, defending a criminal, who committed a particularly nasty (according to the beliefs of the lawyer) crime isn't. Client doesn't pay: The client, whether innocent or not, runs out of money and can't pay the lawyer any more. Is it legal for the lawyer to stop defending his client? Notes: I'm only interested if it's legal. I understand that if a lawyer steps down from a lawsuit, it may ruin his reputation (other clients may fear they will do the same during their trials). If the answer to this question depends on the state, then I'm interested in a criminal lawsuit in Arkansas. In the section ethical reasons I mean a situation, when the lawyer has the gut feeling that the client is 100 % guilty, but the court may think otherwise. In real life there are situations, when you have a feeling like that, but you can't prove it. Nonetheless, you act based on that feeling (even if there is no evidence that could prove this feeling to another party). The evidence may be not enough for court or police, but it's enough for them.
A Lawyer In A Court Case Needs Court Permission To Withdraw Once a lawyer is representing a client in court, the lawyer can cease to represent the client, either by "withdrawing" or in a "substitution of counsel" (which is far less regulated), but a lawyer can only withdraw and leave the client unrepresented if the lawyer obtains the permission of the court presiding over the case to do so, after giving appropriate formal notice to the client. And, the court is within its rights to refuse to allow the lawyer to withdraw from the representation in most cases, and certainly if the reason for the lawyer's withdrawal is that the lawyer is not getting paid. Why would a court deny a lawyer permission to withdraw? A case in which a former client is self-represented is a nightmare to deal with at trial from a practical perspective for a judge, screws up the judge's calendar if the trial has to be delayed to allow a new lawyer to get up to speed after being hired, and is also much more prone to lead to reversible error that could cause the case to be overturned on appeal. For example, usually when a lawyer is present and the prosecution seeks to admit inadmissible evidence, the lawyer objects on the proper legal ground and the judge evaluates the objection and keeps the evidence out. But, if no one objects, letting in the evidence can still lead to a reversal on appeal if doing so was "plain error", and the "plain error" or objection preservation analysis on appeal becomes even trickier if the defendant representing himself objects to the evidence coming in, but for the wrong reasons - for example, objecting to inadmissible hearsay on the grounds that it is irrelevant when it isn't irrelevant but is inadmissible, but mentions that the person questioned "wasn't even there" when the statement was made. Also, since there is a right to counsel for indigent defendants in criminal cases, when a lawyer withdraws (especially for non-payment) the court now has to determine whether or not the client is indigent (which non-payment would typically support an inference of) and if so, the court must appoint a new lawyer who would have to do lots of redundant work to get up to speed in a case. Failure to do so would be fertile grounds for potentially setting aside a conviction. This is particularly a concern when the only issue is nonpayment of fees, so nothing about the representation itself is fundamentally flawed. Judge's don't have much sympathy for the lawyer in these cases in criminal matters, because the ordinary custom and practice is to work for a flat fee that is mostly paid up front. A judge who forces a lawyer to keep working a case like that is prioritizing fairness for the client over coddling the lawyer's bad business management of the lawyer's firm, protecting the public from having to hire a public defender at the public's expense in the case in a manner that might involve wasteful redundant legal work, and protecting the public interest in keeping an eye on police misconduct. But, if a lawyer is not getting paid early in a case, for example, entering an appearance on an emergency basis around the time of an arrest and then seeking to withdraw a week or two later when the client fails to make a promised retainer payment, the lawyer will usually be allowed to withdraw by the court. Generally speaking, the closer the case gets to the trial date, the more likely it is that the court will refuse to allow the lawyer to withdraw. The Impact Of A Withdrawal On A Lawyer's Reputation It is not as a general rule harmful to a lawyer's reputation to withdraw from representing a client. As noted before, there are circumstances when it is mandatory to do so (see Rule 1.16(a) below), and most of the reasons for withdrawing that are permitted but not required (see Rule 1.16(b) below) would also not damage a lawyer's reputation. For example, nobody is going to fault a lawyer for withdrawing from a case because he contracted cancer (a lawyer in my office suite had to do this, then returned to practice during a multi-year remission, and then had to withdraw again shortly before his death), or because a client has become non-responsive. Indeed, one of the main motives for a lawyer to withdraw other than not getting paid, is that the client's conduct makes it impossible for the lawyer to represent the client in a manner that doesn't harm the lawyer's reputation. For example, a key part of a lawyer's reputation is his ability to make a statement of fact or law, when not under oath to the court or to another lawyer in a case, which people will consider trustworthy without having to verify it formally. But, if a lawyer's client lies to the lawyer causing a representation made by the lawyer to end up being false, the lawyer may want to cease representing the client so that the lawyer does not end up innocently making a false statement that damages the lawyer's reputation in the future. Similarly, one of the most common reasons for a lawyer to withdraw other than not being paid is that the client simply stops responding to telephone calls, stops showing up to meetings with the lawyer, doesn't respond to mail or email, fails to appear at court for hearings, or at mediation sessions, or at probation officer meetings, etc. Since a lawyer is required to get a client's signature and/or approval for certain steps of a case, and often to show up in person at hearings as well, the lawyer is required to withdraw to preserve the lawyer's reputation because not doing so would force the lawyer to have violations of court rules that the lawyer is responsible for meeting on behalf of a client. It would be rare for a good lawyer to make it through a career without having to withdraw for a reason like this at least half a dozen times over a career. Obviously, there are reasons for a withdrawal that can hurt a lawyer's reputation. If the lawyer withdraws because he won't be able to make court dates because he will be serving a jail sentence himself or will be in drug rehabilitation or is facing embezzlement charges, that isn't good for the lawyer's reputation. Similarly, if the lawyer withdraws following a judge's implication that the lawyer has engaged in misconduct in a case, or following a client letter to court accusing the lawyer of something unsavory, that hurts the lawyer's reputation. A client discharging a lawyer from a case can be good or bad for the lawyer's reputation, if it happens infrequently, although frequently being fired by clients is always bad for a lawyer's reputation. If the client seems crazy or mean spirited, being fired won't hurt the lawyer's reputation. If the client seems reasonable or seems to have good cause to fire the lawyer, it does hurt the lawyer's reputation. But, in general, good lawyers withdraw from representing clients, not exactly on a regular basis, but certainly many times during the course of an ordinary, highly reputable career. A typical, good quality, ethical lawyer with a busy practice will withdraw from representing a client in the middle of a case perhaps once every two to four years on average, and more often if the lawyer handles a lot of small cases and a high volume of clients. Put another way, a typical reputable lawyer probably withdraws from representing 0.5%-2% of the lawyer's clients mid-case. Of course, if a lawyer routinely withdrew mid-case from say 5%-20% of that lawyer's cases, that would reflect poorly on the lawyer who, even if each individual withdrawal is proper, is not doing a workmanlike job of screening potential clients. Reasons For Withdrawal Allowed Under Arkansas Law The authorized reasons for withdrawing from a representation in Arkansas are set forth in Rule 1.16 of the Arkansas Rules of Professional Conduct: (a) Except as stated in paragraph (c), a lawyer shall not represent a client or, where representation has commenced, shall withdraw from the representation of a client if: (1) the representation will result in violation of the rules of professional conduct or other law; (2) the lawyer's physical or mental condition materially impairs the lawyer's ability to represent the client; or (3) the lawyer is discharged. (b) Except as stated in paragraph (c), a lawyer may withdraw from representing a client if: (1) withdrawal can be accomplished without material adverse effect on the interests of the client; (2) the client persists in a course of action involving the lawyer's services that the lawyer reasonably believes is criminal or fraudulent; (3) the client has used the lawyer's services to perpetrate a crime or fraud; (4) a client insists upon taking action that the lawyer considers repugnant or with which the lawyer has a fundamental disagreement; (5) the client fails substantially to fulfill an obligation to the lawyer regarding the lawyer's services and has been given reasonable warning that the lawyer will withdraw unless the obligation is fulfilled; (6) the representation will result in an unreasonable financial burden on the lawyer or has been rendered unreasonably difficult by the client; or (7) other good cause for withdrawal exists. (c) A lawyer must comply with applicable law requiring notice to or permission of a tribunal when terminating a representation. When ordered to do so by a tribunal, a lawyer shall continue representation notwithstanding good cause for terminating the representation. (d) Upon termination of representation, a lawyer shall take steps to the extent reasonably practicable to protect a client's interests, such as giving reasonable notice to the client, allowing time for employment of other counsel, surrendering papers and property to which the client is entitled and refunding any advance payment of fee or expense that has not been earned or incurred. The lawyer may retain papers relating to the client to the extent permitted by other law. Ethical Reasons The Question First of all, to clarify, the question when asking about "ethical reasons" is asking about personal, not legally enforceable reasons based in personal morality that a lawyer might withdraw. This terminology can be a bit confusing because violations of legally enforceable rules of professional conduct for lawyers, are commonly called "ethics rules". But, violations of "ethics rules" were discussed above, and this part of the answer is about non-legally enforceable reasons rooted in a lawyer's personal moral compass that might cause a lawyer to withdraw from a representation of a client in the middle of a case. The question says this about "ethical reasons": Ethical reasons: When they were hired the lawyer thought the client was innocent (e. g. he thinks the wife accuses the husband of rape just to piss him off), but in the course of the process they came to the conclusion the client is guilty (e. g. the husband actually raped his wife). Defending an innocent client was OK with the moral standars of the lawyer, defending a criminal, who committed a particularly nasty (according to the beliefs of the lawyer) crime isn't. and In the section ethical reasons I mean a situation, when the lawyer has the gut feeling that the client is 100 % guilty, but the court may think otherwise. In real life there are situations, when you have a feeling like that, but you can't prove it. Nonetheless, you act based on that feeling (even if there is no evidence that could prove this feeling to another party). The evidence may be not enough for court or police, but it's enough for them. Criminal Lawyers Routinely, Ethically Represent 100% Guilty People No criminal lawyer who deserves to be practicing law, and honestly, almost no lawyer period, would consider it unethical to represent someone who is 100% guilty in a criminal case. Indeed, the prevailing assumption is that 95%+ of criminal defendants are guilty of something, and criminal defense lawyers actually kind of dread representing a client who really is 100% innocent, because the acceptable standards of success in the case that won't result in injustice and acceptable litigation options in the case, are so much narrower. The fact that a client is 100% guilty, in and of itself, even if the lawyer thought originally that the client was innocent, is absolutely not an honorable reason for a lawyer to withdraw, and the reputation of a lawyer who withdrew from a representation simply on the grounds that the client really did commit a heinous crime, would be shattered. The most esteemed lawyers are those who represent the clients who are charged with the most heinous crimes. Lawyers aren't in the business of deciding whether someone is guilty or innocent. That is the job of a judge and jury. They are in the business of putting the client's best foot forward. Indeed, frequently, a lawyer will intentionally refrain from having a client tell the lawyer about the facts necessary to actually know if the client is guilty or not. Lawyers are not primarily in the business of getting innocent people acquitted. They are primarily in the business of getting people who are guilty of something, or are culpably engaged in activity that is arguably a crime and arguably not a crime, the best available outcome under the circumstances. This involves insisting that the prosecution do everything it is required by law to do in order to prove its case in a lawful manner, negotiating with the prosecutor over what particular crime is the most appropriate way to classify particular conduct, and pushing for the most lenient possible sentence. For example, criminal defense lawyers routinely push to have clients who are 100% guilty acquitted because the evidence against the defendant was obtained illegally by the police. Part of a lawyer's role in defending a criminal case involving a guilty defendant is to perform the larger civic role of constantly monitoring the law enforcement system for police misconduct that incidentally benefits the client (and that is one reason why a court doesn't want to let a lawyer withdraw when the defendant is likely to be guilty but there are indications of police misconduct in the case). Arkansas Rule of Professional Conduct 3.1 which governs a lawyer's legal duty to raise only meritorious claims and defenses specifically addresses the difference between civil and criminal cases in this regard: A lawyer shall not bring or defend a proceeding, or assert or controvert an issue therein, unless there is a basis in law and fact for doing so that is not frivolous, which includes a good faith argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law. A lawyer for the defendant in a criminal proceeding, or the respondent in a proceeding that could result in incarceration, may nevertheless so defend the proceeding as to require that every element of the case be established. The official comment (number 3) to this rule, related to the criminal case exception states: The lawyer's obligations under this Rule are subordinate to federal or state constitutional law that entitles a defendant in a criminal matter to the assistance of counsel in presenting a claim or contention that otherwise would be prohibited by this Rule. What Sort Of Personal Moral Considerations Are Appropriate? The main ground for withdrawing from representing a client for "personal" moral reasons is that (from Rule 1.16 above): a client insists upon taking action that the lawyer considers repugnant or with which the lawyer has a fundamental disagreement Typically, this involves matters of litigation tactics that are not illegal or fraudulent, but that are likely to hurt an innocent third party, to further victimizes the person harmed by the crime, or appeals to prejudice or hate or corruption that could do long term damage to the legal climate or other people. For example, suppose that there is strong circumstantial evidence to suggest that a husband killed his wife, and the husband can't provide an alibi for his whereabouts at the time of the crime because he has amnesia, but the lawyer knows that the wife was actually killed by your client and the husband was actually saving the life of the burglar who in a car accident leaving the scene before the burglar bonked the husband on the head causing the husband to lose his memory. Your client was a burglar who was caught red handed for the burglary with items in his trunk and DNA evidence in the house, but your client lied and said that the wife was dead when he entered the house. A lawyer might conceivably limit how far he would be willing to go to point the blame at the husband even if the client wanted the lawyer to pursue that angle. Or, the victim might be a child who after being victimized had a frail emotional state. The client might push the lawyer to rudely and aggressively question the child and to intimidatingly investigate the child's friends, in an effort to cause the child to have a breakdown and refuse to cooperate further with the prosecution, but lawyer might not be willing to use that tactic even though it might work. Or, the client might be on trial in a county with a lot of KKK members some of whom will probably lie about their biases and end up on the jury. The client might want the lawyer to make an argument that implies with dog whistle type statements that the victim was a gay Jewish black man who didn't deserve to live anyway, while the client was the descendant of a plantation owner who was active protecting KKK interests in the county, and effectively nudge the jury to engage in jury nullification and acquit the client even if they believe that he is guilty. But, the lawyer might not be willing to use that tactic. But, no lawyer worth his salt would ever withdraw in the middle of a case from representing a client simply because the lawyer learned that the client was a KKK leader who was 100% guilty of the crime, and not because of a disagreement in the tactics that the client insisted that the lawyer use.
Unless the lawyer is sitting around with nothing to do (in which case s/he has bigger problems than one yelp review) s/he would have to take time which could otherwise be spent on paying cases to file such a suit. The lawyer would still have to pay court fees to file such a suit. If such a suit were clearly meritless (say the review is not defamatory but merely an expression of opinion) then it should be dismissed early in the process, and the judge and other legal insiders who may follow such matters are likely to have a negative view of the lawyer based on such a filing. This may well hurt the lawyer. more than any Yelp review ever could. If the lawyer files a clearly meritless suit, the court may well order that s/he pay your legal fees as well. There are no guarantees, but the risk of a lawyer filing a "revenge suit" over a moderately negative Yelp review seem low.
The reality is that it is almost never an acceptable tactic to use in any jurisdiction where I ever have/or currently do practice. The bar is relatively small no matter where you are; even in bigger cities. Your reputation is your most valuable asset and it would be crippled if this became your M.O., or was used in anything but the most rare and egregious situations (e.g. withholding evidence, lying to the judge, tampering with jury). Small violations (which are seemingly big in the heat of trial) happen every day and if you even suggested this it would come back on you more times than not. This is exponentially true in the criminal arena where the Judges and prosecutors interact on a daily basis and have formed collegial relationships. If you practice criminal law you often need to form good working relationships with the ADAs or AAGs since most cases get disposed of through negotiations with these very individuals. I have been in situations where my colleagues and I discussed it, opined on how it would be appropriate, but in the end have never gone that far. One time things were so bad with opposing counsel on so many levels, I considered it; however, I was a newish lawyer and my mentor at the time told me that he had never seen anyone but a federal court judge issue a sanction and aside from that, had never even seen it requested by a lawyer in the local bar. And these were horribly bad violations of the rules of procedure, conduct unbecoming, etc. So, I would suggest avoiding this practice. My rule of thumb is that unless the offending practice is so egregious that one would be technically duty bound to report the conduct to the bar, it is not appropriate to ask for sanctions.
If the two lawyers will never be on opposing sides of a case, there's no conflict of interest and thus nobody cares. For example, two lawyers in different fields probably won't encounter a conflict. If the lawyers are involved in the same field, there's a risk of a conflict of interest. Normally, the lawyers can shield themselves from legal trouble by disclosing the conflict any time it comes up. Where possible, the lawyers should avoid such cases before the conflict even starts (i.e., a lawyer should not take a case if they believe that the other lawyer will be on the other side). Similarly, disclosing the relationship to their boss allows their boss to avoid assigning such cases. In short: Such a relationship could have consequences, but a competent, ethical lawyer is unlikely to experience them.
Is it acceptable for person A (representing themselves) to refer to person B as &quot;their neighbor&quot; instead of by their name, or would that cause the suit to be dismissed? Omitting the neighbor's name in the pleadings &amp; proceedings cannot singlehandedly cause the dismissal of a defamation suit. The matter would result in dismissal only if the plaintiff repeatedly disobeys court order(s) (if any) to disclose that information. Before the proceedings get to that point, the plaintiff will have had one or more hearings to dispute the defendant's alleged need for identifying a non-party by name. When opposing to that disclosure, the plaintiff's goal is to establish that the false narrative about robbing a neighbor at gunpoint is defamatory regardless of neighbor's name. Keep in mind that the focus in a claim of defamation is the defamed person, whereas the relevance of details such as who the non-parties are pertains to context and evidence. Lastly, the fact that a party to the suit is a pro se litigant is irrelevant from both substantial and procedural standpoints.
It's hard to say, given how little we know about the case and the information, also what you mean by &quot;corrupted&quot; and what your evidence is. Here are two hypothetical cases that illustrate different possibilities. 1: The accused instructs the lawyer to tell the judge &quot;My client has an alibi against the robbery charge: at the time, he was murdering his brother&quot;. Lawyer deems this to be a bad argument because murder is punished more severely than robbery. The lawyer is doing his job, protecting the interest of the client. No crime or civil wrong. 2: The accused instructs the lawyer to tell the judge &quot;My client has an alibi against the robbery charge: at the time, he was in church&quot;. The lawyer doesn't understand that this is exculpatory evidence, thinking &quot;they never asked about church, there's no point in me raising this issue&quot;. The client can probably sue for incompetence. There are possible criminal charges possible, for example if the lawyer is working for The Mob he might be involved in an actual criminal conspiracy.
If you state, to a third person, that Joe has performed a criminal act then that is defamation and you can be sued. Unless it is true. However, if you are relying on the truth as a defence you will need to provide evidence that it is. At the moment you lack: a criminal conviction of Joe any physical evidence against Joe any personal knowledge that Joe has committed these acts. All you have, is second hand rumours that this has happened to 5 women, some of whom have reported it to you in person. This is called hearsay and it is not evidence. It may be true, it probably is true - you can't prove it's true and in court, that's all that matters. If you were sued your only possible defence is to call these women to give the evidence they are unwilling to give - are you willing to betray their confidence to that extent?
Short Answer The concern raised is a real one, but it is much less serious than one might naively expect. Long Answer Precedents Apply Only To Resolve The Legal Arguments Presented On The Facts Found To Exist At Trial A Bad Lawyer's Failure To Develop Facts At Trial Isn't A Serious Problem A precedent determines the law as applied to a particular set of facts found by the trial court and confirmed as properly in the trial court record by the appellate court, as to a particular legal issue. Failure to prove facts at trial due to the fault of counsel for a party in the trial court changes the scope of the precedent. Failure to establish facts in one case that sets a precedent, doesn't prevent a similarly situated party, in a case with essentially the same actual facts, from doing a better job and thus presenting a set of facts that are not governed by the same precedent. The precedent from the ill argued case would not apply because the facts as found by the trial court would be different. A Bad Lawyer's Failure To Present Legal Arguments Isn't A Serious Problem if a someone lost a case merely because they did not come up with an argument which, should they have come up with, would convince the judge to rule in their favour, and that case has become a precedent, the fate of any following cases in lower courts with comparable facts will be decided by that unluckily slow-thinking litigant/lawyer. Likewise, suppose that due to incompetence of counsel, a key legal argument isn't made. When a trial court lawyer makes that mistake, the precedent will merely resolve the legal arguments that were resolved by the trial court. This won't preclude a future litigant from making different legal arguments that are stronger in the same circumstances since the precedent won't resolve those legal arguments. For example, suppose that a trial, a lawyer for one side fails to argue that the statute of frauds (which requires certain contracts to be in writing) bars the claim, and the judgment in favor of other other side on an oral agreement is upheld on appeal. A lawyer in a new case with the same facts can move to dismiss the other side's claim based upon the statute of frauds, because the precedent upholding the oral agreement didn't resolve the question of whether the statute of frauds could be used to dismiss the claim arising under that agreement. There Aren't Better Alternatives To Sift Through Legal Arguments No lawyer can make every argument. The incentives of the system and the professional regulation of lawyers, however, increases the likelihood that the strongest arguments will be made to the court setting the precedent and in the trial court before an appellate court considers the issue, relative to pretty much any other means of clarifying ambiguous issues in the law, where the advocates for different legal rules usually don't have the same strong incentives to argue their cases as well as they possibly can. The Risk Posed By Ineffectual Rhetoric In Favor Of Good Rules Of Law Is Real But Limited This doesn't mean that bad lawyering doesn't give rise to bad precedents. But when this happens it is usually because for a given argument and set of facts, the lawyer for one side is so much more rhetorically effective in making a legal argument than the lawyer for the other side which is proposing a &quot;better rule&quot; of law. But the exclusion of people who can't finish law school and pass the bar exam from the process makes a truly decisive advantage for one party over another in rhetorical effectiveness fairly rare. To the extent that rhetorical failure in appellate briefing is the cause of a bad precedent, the long term systemic effect of this problem (some would call it a feature of the system rather than a flaw) is that the side with more resources that can afford to hire better lawyers will tend to produce legal results that favor similarly situated parties going forward. Thus, it produces a sort of diluted &quot;natural selection&quot; effect (a bias that is equally, if not more concerning, in the duel of lobbyists for all sides of an issue in the legislative process). The other safeguards discussed below, limit this risk, although not completely. Other Safeguards Subject-Matter Jurisdiction The requirement of an actual &quot;case and controversy&quot; for subject-matter jurisdiction, and the requirement of &quot;standing&quot; for subject-matter jurisdiction are designed to prevent someone from intentionally making straw man arguments on appeal that produce precedents that are bad law. Thoughtful Appellate Judges When Opinions Are Published Also, appellate court precedents are made by a panel of multiple (usually three at the first direct appeal level) experienced and esteemed judges who are acutely aware that the decisions that they are making in precedent setting cases influence the law in other cases which causes them to look beyond the arguments of the parties to resolve the dispute. It isn't at all uncommon in such cases for an appellate court to resolve a case on appeal on the basis of arguments not made by either party in their briefs, or precedents or statutes not mentioned by either party. Furthermore, most appellate court decisions are unpublished opinions that expressly determined by the panel making the decision not to make a binding precedent, which allows panels of judges in these cases to take less care to run afoul of the risk of making a bad decision due to bad lawyering by a party. So, in the minority of cases that are published and create binding precedents, judges are especially careful to consider this risk. Five More Safeguards The other main safeguards in the case law system against bad precedents due to poor lawyering by a party are: (1) the ability of uninvolved third-parties to file amicus briefs in connection with an appeal presenting perspectives on legal issues not presented by a party, (2) the ability of a state supreme court or the U.S. Supreme Court (or both) as the case may be, to overrule intermediate appellate court precedents that were wrongly decided, (3) the ability of legislatures to change non-constitutional legal rulings by statute, (4) the procedural requirement that the relevant state or federal attorney general be given notice and an opportunity to intervene in cases challenging the constitutionality of a law, and (5) the ability of the political process to amend the relevant constitution to address a bad binding precedent by a highest court on a constitutional issue that the legislature cannot fix. Collectively These Safeguards Help Somewhat None of these safeguards are fool proof. But, collectively, these safeguards reduce the risk of a bad precedent being established due to bad lawyering in an adversary system, that the inherent limitation of a precedent being limited to particular facts and particular legal arguments provides as a primary means of preventing. Other Causes Of Bad Precedents Are More Of A Problem In general, once all of the considerations above are taken together, the risk of a bad precedent being made due to bad lawyering, while it is real, is significantly smaller than the risk that a bad precedent will be made because the appellate judges rendering the precedent making opinion are bad judges. Bad judges usually end up as judges with appellate precedent making power because they were selected more based upon political considerations, as they are in many states, and in the federal system, rather than primarily based upon the soundness of their legal judgment. When one risk factor that can lead to a bad decision is much larger than another risk factor that can lead to a bad decision, further improvements in the smaller risk factor will rarely make all that much of a difference in the overall likelihood that the system will produce a bad precedent. So, the adversary system, is, on balance, good enough make the risk of bad precedents arising from bad lawyering a not very troubling problem with the system, even though it is a real risk that sometimes does produce bad precedents.