The Bar Speaks

Dear Editor:

In my article titled "Losing," which appeared in the July/August issue of the Journal, I mentioned that Aaron Burr is the only major legal figure in American history reputed never to [have] lost a case. Unfortunately, the footnote material I included on this point was left on the cutting room floor. I think that it is important for proper perspective to include Burr’s biographer’s comments on Burr’s courtroom record.

It was said at the time that in all his life Burr never lost a case that he personally conducted. The obvious retort to such an assertion is, as all lawyers are aware, that the successful ones’ practice was either severely limited or that he chose his cases with care. Burr chose his cases with care. He refused to appear in court on a matter of whose eventual success he was not fairly confident." Nathan Schachner, Aaron Burr 88 (Frederick A. Stokes Company, 1937) (emphasis added).

One of Abraham Lincoln’s biographers had this comment about "winning" as the sole measure of a lawyer’s stature, which I think also deserved to make it past the editor’s scissors.

[I]f success in the courts is the criterion (of the rank of a lawyer), then Aaron Burr must have first honors, for he never lost a case. But if loftier considerations enter into the question of what constitutes a really great lawyer – if it is right to demand something nobler than advocacy, something broader than commercial success – then it is proper to insist on personal character as one of the elements that determine the just rank of any member of the profession. Frederick Trevor Hill, Lincoln the Lawyer 32-33 (Fred B. Rothman & Co., 1986) (originally published 1906).

I guess the question comes down to who you would rather have as your lawyer if you really needed a lawyer. Abraham Lincoln, who certainly lost a goodly share of his cases, but whose courage and loyalty would at least guarantee that your position was vigorously presented? Or Aaron Burr, who technically never lost a case, but who apparently could not be counted on to stay at his post if things were to take an unfavorable turn? A captain unwilling to go down with his ship, so to speak. The answer certainly seems clear to me.

Very truly yours,
Glenn E. Bradford
Kansas City