Would BigLaw Have Made A Difference in a 9-0 Decision?
A few weeks back, I responded to arguments that solo practitioners are bringing down the quality of criminal representation at the Supreme Court and should instead cede control of their cases to experts at BigLaw. (for more discussion of the issue, see Orin Kerr and Concurring Opinions.) One case, Brigham v. Stuart, was at the center of the controversy, with many experts criticizing solo Mike Studebaker's performance.
The results are in and just I suspected, Brigham was DOA, a quick and decisive 9-0 ruling with a concurrence from Stevens, wondering why the case even made it up to the Court to begin with. So my question now is how would a Supreme Court expert have changed this outcome?
Posted by Carolyn Elefant on May 22, 2006 at 03:51 PM | Permalink
| Comments (0)
| TrackBack (0)
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Would BigLaw Have Made A Difference in a 9-0 Decision?: