I don't know how Gideon finds these things, but he has come up with scientific proof that experience makes the difference.  Apologies to all those moms and dads who mortgaged the farm to get junior into Harvard on a subprime 110% refi, but it's not like you can buy the kid experience.  Nosireebob (only a guy with some snow on the roof gets to use words like "nosireebob").  The plain truth is that we do better. 

In a masterful study, with the incredibly catchy title of The Luck of the Draw: Using Random Case Assignment to Investigate Attorney Ability, David Abrams and Albert Yoon give us the backup to claim what we intuitively knew:  Defendants with experienced lawyers do better.  A lot better, in fact. 

Attorneys with longer tenure in the office achieve better outcomes for the client. We find that a veteran public defender with ten years of experience reduces the average length of incarceration by 17 percent relative to a public defender in her first year.

See that.  Seventeen percent.  So if your defendant was sentenced to 100 years with some kid, he's only get 87 83 year with me.  Hey, wait a sec.  That doesn't sound so great.  87 83 years is still a long time.  And if they die of old age before getting out, what difference does it make how many years they had left.  Let's try again.

Experienced attorneys achieve substantially more favorable outcomes for their clients (defendants) than less experienced attorneys. Defendants represented by more experienced attorneys are more likely to avoid a prison or jail sentence, and those who do receive a sentence serve shorter terms on average.

Now we're talking.  No jail.  That's the ticket.  Hire me and I'll set you free!  That should really be on my business card, not that it's scientifically proven.  But what exactly do they mean by "substantially more favorable outcomes?"  Well, it's never made quite clear exactly what that means, except some discussion about how a month or two doesn't seem like a lot, but it's significant to the authors.  Not that I disagree at all, but I was hoping for something with a lot more beef than that, if you know what I mean.

Then comes the flip side of the study.  What about the child geniuses from the Tier 1 law schools?

We do not, however, find any statistically significant differences in sentencing based on the attorney’s legal educational background.

Attorneys who attended higher-tier law schools (based on 2005 U.S. News & World Report law school rankings) do not obtain better sentence outcomes for their clients than their peers who attended lower-tier schools

I'm sorry.  I didn't hear that.  Could you repeat it please?  We do not, however, find any statistically significant differences in sentencing based on the attorney’s legal educational background.  All you Biglaw partners reading this (and I know you do, though you'll never admit it), are you getting anything out of this?  Anything at all?
I'll translate this into language that you Hahvahd guys and Elis can appreciate, It Doesn't Matter!  You Did It For Nothing!  You coulda gone to the beer blasts and partied like it's 1999.

But here's the one piece of the study that really blows me away:  Hispanic lawyers get 26% better outcomes than other racial groups.  Now that's significant.  The study attributes it in part to selectiveness, by dint of the ability to communicate directly with Spanish-speaking defendants.  But it doesn't come anywhere near explaining this disparity adequately, and the authors can't come up with a viable reason.  Uh, maybe they're just damn good lawyers inclined to pursue careers in criminal defense because Alberto Gonzalez already got, and blew, the AG job?  Notably, Hispanic attorney were compensated lower than Asian and white attorney, though a lot better than black attorneys.  At least there's something you can count.

So there you have it, amigos.  Quen es el mejor abogado del Nueva York!  Viejito Greenfield!