Legal rules decide one-shotter cases because counsel quality is evenly matched

Evidence

OS versus OS In terms of legal representation, one-shotters typically find themselves rather evenly matched. Generally, either both parties have retained counsel or neither has, and neither party is likely to hire an attorney from the elite ranks of the legal profession. Because disparities in the quality of counsel are unlikely to determine the outcome of disputes between one-shotters, the substance of the law may have a decisive effect on the outcome of the case. — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 1118

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Qualified counsel can determine a criminal trial’s outcome regardless of guilt — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 215; Where counsel quality is equal, the substance of law decides case outcomes. — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 2270; Legal treatment of killing varies with defendant status and lawyering quality — Albert Bandura, Moral Disengagement: How People Do Harm…, 1889 (+2 more)

Broader Connections

• Where counsel quality is equal, the substance of law decides case outcomes. #expands (0.90) — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 2270
• Lawyer groups with long-term stakes can equalize one-shotter bargaining power. #qualifies (0.85) — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 2290
• Legal treatment of killing varies with defendant status and lawyering quality #complicates (0.78) — Albert Bandura, Moral Disengagement, 1889
• Every legal maxim has a counter-maxim applicable with equal plausibility #qualifies (0.72) — Philip Chase Bobbitt, Reflections Inspired by My Critics, 820