what attorney has won the most cases in front of the supreme court

What attorney has won the most cases?

Gerald Leonard Spence (born January 8, 1929) is a semi-retired American trial lawyer. He is a member of the American Trial Lawyers Hall of Fame. Spence has never lost a criminal case either as a prosecutor or a defense attorney, and has not lost a civil case since 1969.

Who is the best Supreme Court lawyer?

Top 30 lawyers of Supreme court-Complete ProfileRam Jethmalani-: The King of all the Kings, the “Shahensha” of Supreme Court, Shri Ram Jethmalani was the oldest and the most Senior Advocate of Supreme Court and India as well. ... Harish N Salve-: ... KK venugopal-:More items...

Who has the most Supreme Court oral arguments?

Paul Clement argued the most times with 30 total arguments. Neal Katyal was second with 21 arguments. Jeffrey Fisher had the third most with 18 arguments and Kannon Shanmugam had the fourth most with 15 arguments.

Who is the greatest lawyer of all time?

Four Famous Lawyers in History Every Attorney Should KnowJoe Jamail (aka King of Torts) During his time, Joe Jamail was the richest attorney in the United States and some would argue one of the most famous prosecutors to litigate. ... Abraham Lincoln (aka Honest Abe) ... Clarence Darrow. ... Mary Jo White.

Which type of lawyer earns the most in world?

Medical Lawyers typically make the highest yearly salary. This type of lawyer provides their clients with a variety of legal advisement and services related to medical law. This includes the areas of health care law, personal injury, medical malpractice and a variety of other related areas.

How many lawyers are there in Supreme Court?

Supreme Court of IndiaAuthorized byArticle 124 of the Constitution of IndiaJudge term lengthMandatory retirement at 65 years of ageNumber of positions34(33+1; present strength)Websitewww.sci.gov.in12 more rows

Can you resign from the Supreme Court?

Supreme Court justices serve for life, unless they resign or are impeached and removed from office. The reason for their lifetime tenure is to enable them to make decisions free from any pressure by the executive or legislative branches of government.

What cases will the Supreme Court hear in 2021?

Here are eight of the most noteworthy cases the Court will hear during its 2021-2022 term.Abortion Access. Dobbs v. ... Gun rights. New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc v. ... Separation of Church and State. Carson v. ... State Secrets. United States v. ... Death Penalty. United States v. ... First Amendment. Shurtleff v.

What is the rule of four in government?

The “rule of four” is the Supreme Court's practice of granting a petition for review only if there are at least four votes to do so. The rule is an unwritten internal one; it is not dictated by any law or the Constitution.

Who has the most wins in a 5 vote majority case?

Paul Clement had the most wins in five-vote majority cases with four. Neal Katyal and Scott Keller each had three wins in closely decided cases. Several other attorneys had two wins in this category, including Elaine Goldenberg and Malcolm Stewart from OSG.

Why is it so hard to define success in the Supreme Court?

Click graph to enlarge. Success in the Supreme Court is hard to define because it can be viewed in a variety of ways. Few attorneys have the opportunity to try cases there, and even fewer argue multiple cases. Part of success therefore is simply getting a case or cases to the court. Once the court agrees to hear a case, ...

How to compare attorneys and firms?

Along with justices’ votes, another way to compare attorneys and firms is by the issues involved in the cases they try (The coding for issue is also through the Supreme Court Database.). Because some of the court’s most salient recent decisions, such as Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31 and Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, have been in the area of First Amendment rights, this seemed an appropriate place to start.

Why do attorneys not start with equal likelihood of winning?

Once the court agrees to hear a case, the case’s history comes with it; that is to say, attorneys do not all start with an equal likelihood of winning because often one side’s position is stronger than the other’s at the outset.

How to separate out attorneys?

One way to separate out attorneys is to look at those who have been successful in cases that came down to close votes. This is also a way to gauge some of the most proficient Supreme Court attorneys. The following figure tracks attorneys who won two or more cases decided by a five-vote majority between the 2013 and 2017 terms.

Which law firm has won the 4th amendment?

California’s S.G.’s office is the only firm or group with two Fourth Amendment wins across this period, as all other players in these cases, including the United States, amassed a single win apiece. The non-private-law-firm presence in this figure and in the First Amendment firm figure are both in fairly stark contrast to the most frequent attorneys and firms before the court over this time period generally. This hints at the diversity of lawyers trying cases (or defending rulings, in the case of state and federal governmental entities) in these areas.

Who is the lead attorney in the Alliance Defending Freedom case?

The leader in this area, Alliance Defending Freedom, with four wins, had David Cortman as the lead attorney in two of these cases. Next come OSG, Stanford’s Supreme Court Litigation Clinic and the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation (where William Messenger works).

Who is the best Supreme Court attorney?

Paul Clement is considered the best Supreme Court attorney, but he lost the two biggest case of the last Supreme Court term.

Who lost the Arizona case?

In the end, after all the accolades for him and all the derision for his opponent, Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, it was Clement who lost the two biggest cases of the term: The Republican challenge to the Affordable Care Act and the state of Arizona’s defense of its hard-charging immigration law.

Do oral arguments matter in the Supreme Court?

Even perfect people have setbacks. Also, oral arguments do not matter as much as they appear to in the moment, and the same may be true of elite Supreme Court lawyers in general. Sure, if your case makes it to the Supreme Court, you don’t want a schlub up there representing you.

Who won the case that you referred to at the outset?

In fact, Paul Clement, who won the case that you referred to at the outset, that was his 75th argument before the court.

Who won the 75th argument?

In fact, Paul Clement, who won the case that you referred to at the outset, that was his 75th argument before the court. GWEN IFILL: Wow. JOAN BISKUPIC: And what he has in common with this narrow core is that he had been a Supreme Court law clerk to Justice Scalia and that he had been U.S. solicitor general.

What do justices look for in a case?

The justices look for — the people who are getting the cases are people who have been there before. They advertise their numbers on their Web sites. They pitch themselves to clients that way.

How many cases did John Roberts argue?

Chief Justice John Roberts was once a member of this star appellate bar. He had argued 39 cases before the justices. And several people who appear before are kind of models of him. In fact, they want to be models of him.

Does Roberts Court favor corporate America?

Now, first of all, I want to say that, certainly, the predilection of the Roberts court have been documented as, in some ways, favoring corporate America. So it's kind of reinforcing that way. It's that they come from corporate law firms, so they're bound to be representing more big business than the little guys, so to speak, you know, employees.

Can a lawyer argue on the Supreme Court?

But, generally speaking, anyone who's a lawyer who's admitted to the Supreme Court bar, which literally would cover thousands, tens of thousands out in America, can argue. It's just that we have found is that, more and more, clients are turning to this select group. And the justices themselves seem to be signaling that they're interested not just in the merits of a case that is presented to them, but the merits of the lawyering, just because of what the data have shown.