This is part of series on Judges and the Judiciary
Post 1 Selecting Judges In America Is A Failure
Post 2 Judges Must Be Trial Lawyers First
Post 3 America Replaced Barristers With Law Office Paper Shufflers
Post 5 Why Appellate Judges Must First Serve as Trial Judges
Most Businesses Do Not Need a Trial Lawyer Every Day
Most businesses do not need a courtroom advocate on a daily basis.
They need accountants.
They need managers.
They need engineers.
They need salespeople.
They need bankers.
And they need lawyers who negotiate contracts, structure transactions, advise management, and keep the company out of trouble.
Those lawyers perform valuable work but that is not the same thing as trying cases.
The legal profession once understood the difference. Today, many businesses do not.
Advising Clients Is Not the Same as Advocating for Them
A lawyer who drafts contracts may be highly competent.
A lawyer who structures a merger may be highly competent.
A lawyer who manages regulatory compliance may be highly competent.
However, none of those skills prepares a lawyer to walk into a courtroom and represent a company when millions of dollars, corporate assets, or the future of the business are at stake. Courtroom advocacy is a separate discipline.
The skills required to negotiate a contract are not the same skills required to cross-examine a hostile witness.
The skills required to prepare a memorandum are not the same skills required to persuade a jury.
Business executives and entrepreneurs frequently assume that a lawyer who has advised them successfully for years is automatically qualified to represent them in court. Often that assumption is made for the first time when the company faces its most serious lawsuit.
That assumption can be expensive.
Litigation Departments Are Not Barristers
Large law firms market themselves as full-service legal organizations. Many maintain substantial litigation departments. Some perform excellent work but the issue is whether the lawyers assigned to a case are experienced trial lawyers.
Preparing litigation is not the same as trying cases in a courtroom.
Taking depositions and managing discovery is not the same as examining even the same witness in a Courtroom during a trial.
Drafting motions and appellate arguments is not the same as persuading juries.
Businesses often discover the differences only after the trial begins and by then it may be too late.
The Cost of Learning in Public
Every experienced trial lawyer has seen that when a company becomes involved in major litigation, teams of lawyers appear.
The legal bills increase.
Boxes of documents are reviewed.
Experts are retained.
Motions are filed.
Meetings are held.
The company believes it has assembled an impressive legal team.
Then the case reaches a courtroom and suddenly success depends upon courtroom advocacy and trial management.
Can the trial lawyer control a hostile witness?
Can the trial lawyer expose a misleading expert?
Can the trial lawyer persuade twelve strangers sitting in a jury box?
Can the trial lawyer think under pressure when the judge changes the rules in the middle of trial?
Courtrooms expose weaknesses that conference rooms can hide for years.
Businesses Need Barristers When the Stakes Are Highest
Many legal matters never reach trial and most should not.
Negotiation often makes sense.
Alternative dispute resolution often makes sense.
Settlement often makes sense.
But when serious litigation becomes unavoidable, businesses need something more than legal advisers. They need trial lawyers and courtroom advocates.
They need lawyers who have developed trial judgment.
They need lawyers who understand trials because they have actually tried cases.
They need the lawyers who the other common law countries call barristers and we know as trial lawyers.
Their function remains essential.
The Same Principle Applies to Judges
The legal profession once understood that courtroom advocates develop skills that other lawyers do not.
Businesses and entrepreneurs ignore that reality at their peril.
If courtroom experience matters when selecting lawyers to handle important trials, it also matters when selecting the judges who preside over those trials.
The principle is the same.
Courtrooms produce trial lawyers.
Trial lawyers should become judges.
America abandoned that progression long ago and the consequences reach far beyond the trial courts.
Every Business and Entrepreneur Needs a Trial Lawyer Eventually
June 9, 2026 | Policy Analysis
This is part of series on Judges and the Judiciary
Post 1 Selecting Judges In America Is A Failure
Post 2 Judges Must Be Trial Lawyers First
Post 3 America Replaced Barristers With Law Office Paper Shufflers
Post 5 Why Appellate Judges Must First Serve as Trial Judges
Most Businesses Do Not Need a Trial Lawyer Every Day
Most businesses do not need a courtroom advocate on a daily basis.
They need accountants.
They need managers.
They need engineers.
They need salespeople.
They need bankers.
And they need lawyers who negotiate contracts, structure transactions, advise management, and keep the company out of trouble.
Those lawyers perform valuable work but that is not the same thing as trying cases.
The legal profession once understood the difference. Today, many businesses do not.
Advising Clients Is Not the Same as Advocating for Them
A lawyer who drafts contracts may be highly competent.
A lawyer who structures a merger may be highly competent.
A lawyer who manages regulatory compliance may be highly competent.
However, none of those skills prepares a lawyer to walk into a courtroom and represent a company when millions of dollars, corporate assets, or the future of the business are at stake. Courtroom advocacy is a separate discipline.
The skills required to negotiate a contract are not the same skills required to cross-examine a hostile witness.
The skills required to prepare a memorandum are not the same skills required to persuade a jury.
Business executives and entrepreneurs frequently assume that a lawyer who has advised them successfully for years is automatically qualified to represent them in court. Often that assumption is made for the first time when the company faces its most serious lawsuit.
That assumption can be expensive.
Litigation Departments Are Not Barristers
Large law firms market themselves as full-service legal organizations. Many maintain substantial litigation departments. Some perform excellent work but the issue is whether the lawyers assigned to a case are experienced trial lawyers.
Preparing litigation is not the same as trying cases in a courtroom.
Taking depositions and managing discovery is not the same as examining even the same witness in a Courtroom during a trial.
Drafting motions and appellate arguments is not the same as persuading juries.
Businesses often discover the differences only after the trial begins and by then it may be too late.
The Cost of Learning in Public
Every experienced trial lawyer has seen that when a company becomes involved in major litigation, teams of lawyers appear.
The legal bills increase.
Boxes of documents are reviewed.
Experts are retained.
Motions are filed.
Meetings are held.
The company believes it has assembled an impressive legal team.
Then the case reaches a courtroom and suddenly success depends upon courtroom advocacy and trial management.
Can the trial lawyer control a hostile witness?
Can the trial lawyer expose a misleading expert?
Can the trial lawyer persuade twelve strangers sitting in a jury box?
Can the trial lawyer think under pressure when the judge changes the rules in the middle of trial?
Courtrooms expose weaknesses that conference rooms can hide for years.
Businesses Need Barristers When the Stakes Are Highest
Many legal matters never reach trial and most should not.
Negotiation often makes sense.
Alternative dispute resolution often makes sense.
Settlement often makes sense.
But when serious litigation becomes unavoidable, businesses need something more than legal advisers. They need trial lawyers and courtroom advocates.
They need lawyers who have developed trial judgment.
They need lawyers who understand trials because they have actually tried cases.
They need the lawyers who the other common law countries call barristers and we know as trial lawyers.
Their function remains essential.
The Same Principle Applies to Judges
The legal profession once understood that courtroom advocates develop skills that other lawyers do not.
Businesses and entrepreneurs ignore that reality at their peril.
If courtroom experience matters when selecting lawyers to handle important trials, it also matters when selecting the judges who preside over those trials.
The principle is the same.
Courtrooms produce trial lawyers.
Trial lawyers should become judges.
America abandoned that progression long ago and the consequences reach far beyond the trial courts.