That was a great article - there are still too many lawyers out here, though, who like "arguing for the sake of arguing." The problems are that 1) they think that makes them better lawyers than those who don't have that problem, 2) in their continued repetitions, they sometimes confuse the heck out of judges (some of whom shouldn't be on the bench anyway), and 3) their "strategy" of arguing for the sake of arguing" does a terrible disservice to their clients.

Sometimes, the reasons people have to rely on lawyers is because the emotional level in a situation has gotten out of control. A lawyer who argues for the sake of arguing is just gasoline on the fire.

The best lawyers I've worked with (on both sides of the "v") are those who recognize the strengths and weaknesses in both positions and work toward as much of a "win-win" as they can get. If the parties don't agree, they know what to do, but they don't spend their clients' time and money wrapped up in the arguments unless they have to.

Here's some of .

No sure what happened there. Here's some of my thoughts on the subject.