Lawyers must master even a defective process to protect good causes

Evidence

To those lawyers who would seek optimum benefits from the hearing process by operating within its existing framework, however defective it might be, a knowledge of that framework is obviously essential. This is so even with respect to those who profess to represent a cause that is presumably “on the side of the angels” - for to ignore rather than master the process with all of its infirmities, however defective it is, plays too easily into the hands of an unscrupulous opposition. — Henry M. Hart, Jr. and Albert M. Sacks, The Legal Process, 687

Categorization

• XREF: Echoes the book’s running theme on institutional competence and strategic mastery of process; useable for the LGST course conversation on how lawyers navigate flawed fora. — connects to: Prior-approval systems fail when they cannot be reduced to simple routine — Henry M. Hart, Jr. and Albert M. Sacks, The Legal Process: Basic Problems in…, 772; Proper legal answers require understanding each process’s role in the whole system — Henry M. Hart, Jr. and Albert M. Sacks, The Legal Process: Basic Problems in…, 926; Legitimate causes can require fighting against other valid causes
• APHORISMS: A live-advice nugget worth keeping: ignoring a defective process concedes the field to unscrupulous opposition.

Broader Connections

• Legitimate causes can require fighting against other valid causes #qualifies (0.75)
• Proper legal answers require understanding each process’s role in the whole system #expands (0.72) — Henry M. Hart, Jr. and Albert M. Sacks, The Legal Process, 926