Dime Bancorp Inc (fka DIMEQ)

[Bluzie2]

From my experiences, having clerked for an appellate judge, I partially agree. A skilled advocate with no case won't win for that reason. That being said, in my experience (which admittedly might not apply), a skilled courtroom advocate can really have an effect.

I distinctly remember a judge's meeting after one hearing for an appeal. The judges were in agreement as to the outcome of the case - my judge was assigned to write the opinion, meaning I was assigned to do the first draft. Everything appeared clear, and the judges thought it was. As I dug in and did my research, I became convinced the ruling decided on in the initial meeting may not have been supported by the law. Eventually, I went back to my judge and we had a discussion about the outcome - he was pretty resistant, but the law was compelling. He then had to meet with the other judges, and they swung the other way.

That was a rare moment, though. Often, although the judges did review the bench memos we prepared prior to hearings, they did seem to focus on the oral presentations quite a bit. In my observation, the quality of the oral argument was a function of a number of factors: the skill of the presenter, the facts, and the law. A very skilled lawyer with bad facts and bad law is still going to have a hard time. A bad lawyer can still do well with good law and facts. In my opinion, the biggest effect a skilled lawyer can have on a case is where there's a close call between the facts and the law, simply because the impressions that lawyer forms during hearings to weigh, at least initially, on the court's decision.

IMO, Strochak is probably not a bad lawyer, but he has bad facts, bad witnesses (viva Charlotte), and questionable law backing him up. He didn't help himself by citing to the wrong Golden State LTW agreement and then not informing the court of his mistake. Trust me, the court will remember that, and it will note the fact that debtor's motion for summary judgment relied on the Golden State warrant agreement but now they're arguing that the Golden State accounting isn't dispositive.

Steinberg, on the other hand, is clearly a superior trial attorney, with fairly compelling facts and good witnesses. IMHO, the law tends to back him up.

A court can do whatever it wants, but I don't know that one can dismiss the skills of the presenter in all instances, especially since the court does rely upon the advocates to guide the decision-making process.