A Good Strategy Leaves a Door Open

A Good Strategy Leaves a Door Open

One of the most dangerous things that can happen in a case is for the entire strategy to be built on a single assumption.

One interpretation of the contract, one fact, one document, or one outcome that must occur for the structure to remain standing.

Because the collapse of that link may weaken the entire case.

With practice, I have learned that a good legal strategy does not mean multiplying arguments without need. Rather, it means knowing from the outset:

If the court does not accept our first argument, do we still have another legal route to protect the client's interests?

We may maintain, as our primary position, that the claim is not due, while addressing its amount in the alternative.
We may dispute liability, and then discuss—by way of alternative argument—the causal relationship between the act and the damage, as well as its value.
A particular interpretation of the contract may be the strongest, without that meaning that we ignore the legal consequence on which we can rely if the court adopts a different interpretation.

This is not inconsistency in position, but conscious management of litigation risk.

A lawyer cannot decide how the court will understand every fact, but can build a case that does not collapse entirely if the court does not accept one of its aspects.

A strong strategy is not one that knows only one route to the outcome, but one that knows how to protect the interest even when the route changes.

— Omar Al-Baghdadi