Lawyers
often
need
to
represent
clients
that
do
not
have
too
many
defenses
for
the
crimes
charged
or
the
civil
wrongs
alleged. However,
our
adversarial
system
of
justice
requires
that
people
get
solid
representation
since
justice
is
easier
to
attain
when
the
best
arguments
are
presented
by
all
sides. As
attorneys,
it
can
sometimes
be
easy
to
give
up
and
throw
in
the
towel
on
certain
aspects
of
a
representation.
However,
in
most
situations,
lawyers
should
not
go
down
without
a
fight.
I
do
not
handle
criminal
matters,
but
I
handle
civil
cases,
including
landlord-tenant
issues,
commercial
disputes,
and
other
matters. In
many
situations,
I
can
advance
easy
arguments
in
court
to
represent
my
client’s
interest. However,
sometimes
my
client
is
guilty
of
the
conduct
alleged,
and
it
is
difficult
to
argue
that
my
client
therefore
should
not
be
subject
to
the
consequences
of
these
actions.
Earlier
in
my
career,
I
represented
a
client
in
an
eviction
matter
that
was
filed
by
a
landlord. My
client
had
not
paid
the
rent
as
owed
under
the
lease.
As
a
result,
the
landlord
instituted
an
eviction
action. None
of
the
typical
arguments
for
tenants
existed
since
the
landlord
was
not
in
breach
of
the
lease
itself
nor
had
the
landlord
constructively
evicted
the
tenant
or
committed
any
other
type
of
harm.
Landlord’s
lawyer
asked
me
before
the
eviction
trial
if
I
would
allow
landlord
to
take
a
judgment
of
possession
against
my
client
without
opposition. I
quickly
rejected
this
proposal. As
an
attorney,
I
had
an
obligation
to
diligently
represent
my
client,
and
I
did
not
believe
I
would
be
fulfilling
this
obligation
by
refusing
to
put
up
a
fight. I
told
landlord’s
lawyer
that
I
would
hold
landlord
to
its
burden
of
proof,
so
I
would
not
allow
landlord
to
obtain
a
judgment
of
possession
against
my
client
without
a
fight. The
landlord’s
lawyer
did
not
seem
pleased
with
this
response
since
the
landlord’s
attorney
would
have
to
put
on
a
case
before
a
judgment
of
possession
was
entered.
At
the
eviction
trial,
landlord
had
a
witness
who
did
not
have
firsthand
knowledge
of
the
lease
at
issue
in
that
case. This
witness
also
did
not
sign
the
lease
nor
did
he
witness
the
execution
of
the
lease. Moreover,
landlord’s
witness
did
not
have
firsthand
knowledge
of
how
rent
was
paid
to
landlord
and
did
not
personally
track
all
of
the
rent
payments
made
from
tenants. I
then
submitted
to
the
court
that
the
landlord
was
not
able
to
authenticate
the
lease
at
trial
and
did
not
submit
enough
evidence
to
show
that
my
client
did
not
submit
rent
as
required
by
the
lease.
The
court
ended
up
ruling
in
favor
of
landlord,
but
these
authentication
issues
put
my
client
in
a
good
place
if
we
wanted
to
appeal
the
decision. Ultimately,
my
client
settled
with
the
landlord,
and
an
eviction
was
avoided. It
is
possible
that
had
my
client
simply
permitted
landlord
to
obtain
a
judgment
of
possession
without
a
fight,
landlord
would
have
been
in
a
better
position
and
would
have
negotiated
a
less-favorable
settlement
to
resolve
this
situation.
Of
course,
lawyers
have
a
responsibility
to
avoid
frivolous
arguments,
and
in
some
situations,
it
is
almost
impossible
to
make
an
argument
that
favors
a
client.
However,
lawyers
should
never
go
down
without
a
fight,
and
lawyers
can
usually
use
some
creativity
and
research
to
advance
some
kind
of
argument
in
favor
of
a
client. Making
every
argument
available
to
a
client
can
help
promote
a
client’s
interests
and
ensure
that
a
client
receives
the
best
outcome
possible
when
facing
a
legal
issue.
Jordan
Rothman
is
a
partner
of The
Rothman
Law
Firm,
a
full-service
New
York
and
New
Jersey
law
firm.
He
is
also
the
founder
of Student
Debt
Diaries,
a
website
discussing
how
he
paid
off
his
student
loans.
You
can
reach
Jordan
through
email
at jordan@rothman.law.