Any self-respecting lawyer has probably said it, or at least thought it: "Nobody can represent my client better than I can."
On Tuesday the Supreme Court takes up a Missouri case that could enshrine that conceit in constitutional law. The Court in United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez will decide whether and to what extent a paying defendant has an enforceable Sixth Amendment right to the lawyer of his or her choice.
For a profession that often takes a beating, the briefs on the defendant's side of the case are an elixir, lyrically praising the special quality of individual lawyers and insisting they are not fungible like eggs or oranges. The briefs reach back in time to the famed 1735 trial of John Peter Zenger, who was denied his choice of lawyers by a biased judge.
But beyond the paean to the legal craft, the case could have important courtroom consequences. Defense lawyers fear that if the Court uses the case to weaken the right to counsel of choice, it will become easier for prosecutors, with the cooperation of judges, to knock off expert defense lawyers with national practices in favor of less aggressive hometown adversaries who may fear antagonizing the judge.
Details here from Tony Mauro of Legal Times via Law.com.
BTW, the attorney the judge tried to exclude here was Joseph H. Low IV of Southern California. While Mr. Low sounds like a great attorney, it might not have helped that his firm's web address is "www.AggresiveCriminalDefenseLawyers.com".