In court, good lawyers think of themselves as "officers of the court" — to use a sometimes-forgotten phrase — who are working not just for their clients but als

In court, good lawyers think of themselves as "officers of the court" — to use a sometimes-forgotten phrase — who are working not just for their clients but also for the judge, to help the judge (and the judge's law clerks) to get it right, with rulings that will stand up on appeal if it comes to that. The good lawyer's job is not just to advocate the client's position — it's also to do "completed staff work" for the court in the process, even acknowledging any weaknesses in the client's case (which builds credibility). As we've seen in the ChatGPT case, judges tend to respond badly when they think a lawyer is trying to put one over on them. And conversely, judges often respond favorably when they perceive that a lawyer is being thorough and intellectually honest, not merely throwing up any bullshit argument that comes to mind. A fond memory from years ago is when a federal judge called me and my opponent — a well-known lawyer in our field — into his chambers to talk about a pending motion that involved an uncertain point of law, which we had extensively briefed. My opponent had not done an especially-great job; my own briefing had acknowledged the weak points in my client's position but also explained why my client should win anyway. The judge said, I don't really know what the answer is here. He then turned to me and said, But I'm more comfortable with your analysis. And he ruled my way – which won the case for my client (a company you might well be a customer of today).