Among the many things that came about as a result of the OJ trial was the phenomenon of the Dream Team. I’ve heard clients demand it a hundred times, as no doubt has every other real trial attorney. Phil Spector, apparently, was paying attention and had his own dream team put together for his never ending murder trial.
The big news du jour was that Bruce Cutler, former house counsel to John Gotti, was replaced by San Francisco lawyer Dennis Riordin. If Spector was going for an insanity defense, he should have left Bruce in place, but that’s neither here nor there. I sat in the EDNY courtroom in support of Bruce when Judge I. Leo Glasser sentenced him for the contemptuous act of defending his client. Bruce had guts.
But this isn’t about Bruce. It’s about how defendant’s got their heads all twisted by the Dream Team concept, that worked once (barely) and is now the symbol of how a wealthy criminal defendant defends.
Having more than one defense lawyer was nothing new when OJ went on trial. But putting together a full team of lawyers, under the concept of getting top legal talents with specialized skills and knowledge was novel. In the beginning, the team was put together by Bob Shapiro, a celebrity defense lawyer who specialized in plea bargains. He put Barry Scheck in charge of DNA, F. Lee Bailey in charge of cross-examination and Johnny Cochran later came aboard as Dream Team preacher.
It was only a matter of time before the egos clashed. It had to happen; there could be no other outcome. Bob Shapiro was the runt of the litter, and Johnny Cochran, who emerged as the star of the team, was not a good team player. The message that came out of this trial to the public was very different than the one that many lawyers saw. The Dream Team was as likely to implode at any moment as win the case.
Still, the idea of the Dream Team makes some sense. Under any given set of circumstances, there are criminal defense lawyers with stronger skills in one area than another lawyer might possess, and why not use the strongest skills available? The lawyers will need to work collegially, but they’re big boys and girls and can put their egos aside long enough to make it through a trial. Right?
While I’ve been asked to put together the Dream Team many times, it has never actually happened. First, there’s the bottom line. It is exceptionally expensive. Clients have argued that the cost for trial should be X, so therefore the Dream Team members should divide X between them. Nice try. No go. The Dream Team is definitely a value-added service. Each lawyer layers on an additional cost. Whether you use the lawyer for one thing or everything, you pay for the preparation, appearance and service. That’s not a starting point for negotiations, but a sad fact of life.
A few years back I was asked to represent a rapper of some repute. To this fellow, lawyers were like cars or jewelry. He needed to put on a show of his wealth and importance by having a gaggle of lawyers (or is it a posse?) flanking him as he strutted into the court. It was nothing personal, just appearance. If OJ had a Dream Team, he needed a Dream Team too.
Besides the problem of actually finding lawyers with the skillsets that matched the needs of the case and trying to get them to agree to work together, the client quickly came to realize that this was tougher than deciding whether to order Cristal or Dom. He ultimately realized that he was not so alluring to lawyers that they would flock to his defense for a palatable (to him) fee. His bravado shrunk considerably and he decided that maybe he could do without.
Then there is the matter of strategy. Ultimately, decisions have to be made. While a group of criminal defense lawyers arguing strategy sounds like a great idea, they are not inclined to let go of their views easily. Each one is quite certain that he is right, meaning that others are less right. And no one wants to concede to the will of the group and be forever tainted by a losing defense. Trial by consensus is not a strategy, but a cop out. Ultimately, a leader must make a decision and the others must get on board. But that’s not the dynamics of Dream Teams, as proven by the Johnny and Bob show, and it’s aftermath.
While many trial lawyers would love to be able to bring on board true specialists in specific fields, the best example of which was Professor Barry Scheck, who has forgotten more about DNA than the rest of us ever knew, this is not the Dream Team idea that follows from OJ and lives for Phil Spector today. Two heads aren’t always better than one.
Whether Dennis Riordin, reputed to be an appellate specialist, brings more to the table than Bruce Cutler is not the point. Two lines from the story tell the real problem:
The big news du jour was that Bruce Cutler, former house counsel to John Gotti, was replaced by San Francisco lawyer Dennis Riordin. If Spector was going for an insanity defense, he should have left Bruce in place, but that’s neither here nor there. I sat in the EDNY courtroom in support of Bruce when Judge I. Leo Glasser sentenced him for the contemptuous act of defending his client. Bruce had guts.
But this isn’t about Bruce. It’s about how defendant’s got their heads all twisted by the Dream Team concept, that worked once (barely) and is now the symbol of how a wealthy criminal defendant defends.
Having more than one defense lawyer was nothing new when OJ went on trial. But putting together a full team of lawyers, under the concept of getting top legal talents with specialized skills and knowledge was novel. In the beginning, the team was put together by Bob Shapiro, a celebrity defense lawyer who specialized in plea bargains. He put Barry Scheck in charge of DNA, F. Lee Bailey in charge of cross-examination and Johnny Cochran later came aboard as Dream Team preacher.
It was only a matter of time before the egos clashed. It had to happen; there could be no other outcome. Bob Shapiro was the runt of the litter, and Johnny Cochran, who emerged as the star of the team, was not a good team player. The message that came out of this trial to the public was very different than the one that many lawyers saw. The Dream Team was as likely to implode at any moment as win the case.
Still, the idea of the Dream Team makes some sense. Under any given set of circumstances, there are criminal defense lawyers with stronger skills in one area than another lawyer might possess, and why not use the strongest skills available? The lawyers will need to work collegially, but they’re big boys and girls and can put their egos aside long enough to make it through a trial. Right?
While I’ve been asked to put together the Dream Team many times, it has never actually happened. First, there’s the bottom line. It is exceptionally expensive. Clients have argued that the cost for trial should be X, so therefore the Dream Team members should divide X between them. Nice try. No go. The Dream Team is definitely a value-added service. Each lawyer layers on an additional cost. Whether you use the lawyer for one thing or everything, you pay for the preparation, appearance and service. That’s not a starting point for negotiations, but a sad fact of life.
A few years back I was asked to represent a rapper of some repute. To this fellow, lawyers were like cars or jewelry. He needed to put on a show of his wealth and importance by having a gaggle of lawyers (or is it a posse?) flanking him as he strutted into the court. It was nothing personal, just appearance. If OJ had a Dream Team, he needed a Dream Team too.
Besides the problem of actually finding lawyers with the skillsets that matched the needs of the case and trying to get them to agree to work together, the client quickly came to realize that this was tougher than deciding whether to order Cristal or Dom. He ultimately realized that he was not so alluring to lawyers that they would flock to his defense for a palatable (to him) fee. His bravado shrunk considerably and he decided that maybe he could do without.
Then there is the matter of strategy. Ultimately, decisions have to be made. While a group of criminal defense lawyers arguing strategy sounds like a great idea, they are not inclined to let go of their views easily. Each one is quite certain that he is right, meaning that others are less right. And no one wants to concede to the will of the group and be forever tainted by a losing defense. Trial by consensus is not a strategy, but a cop out. Ultimately, a leader must make a decision and the others must get on board. But that’s not the dynamics of Dream Teams, as proven by the Johnny and Bob show, and it’s aftermath.
While many trial lawyers would love to be able to bring on board true specialists in specific fields, the best example of which was Professor Barry Scheck, who has forgotten more about DNA than the rest of us ever knew, this is not the Dream Team idea that follows from OJ and lives for Phil Spector today. Two heads aren’t always better than one.
Whether Dennis Riordin, reputed to be an appellate specialist, brings more to the table than Bruce Cutler is not the point. Two lines from the story tell the real problem:
Riordon’s eleventh-hour appointment came after previous lead counsel Cutler abruptly left the case in a dispute with Spector over which attorney would deliver closing arguments.Rachelle Spector said her husband decided to remove Cutler and that the music producer will now decide which attorney does closing arguments.
The decision of which attorney’s skills are best suited to deliver the closing argument (a) should not be up in the air at the close of testimony and (b) is not a decision for the defendant. Obviously, Spector’s Dream Team has turned into his nightmare.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
No comment on Cutler’s absence for most of the trial so he could be on a TV show? Is that any way to try a murder case?
Oh baby! I can’t believe I forgot all about that. Is that any way to try a murder case? It is if the lawyer is Cutler. Oops. Did I say that out loud?
Does Bruce’s absence (a) in the midst of trial, (b) for a prolonged period, and (c) to do the socially critical service of filming a TV judge show, not reveal a certain casual approach to responsibility caused (perhaps) by the fact that there was
no slackanother lawyer to pick up the slack.The same mentality that gives rise to the desire to have the Dream Team similarly clouds the critical assessment needed to select who should be part of that team. A lawyer who might be a great choice as a one man show may not be such a good choice as part of tag-team lawyering or the collegial approach. Somehow, I can’t see Bruce as a team player, and I imagine that everyone else breathed easier when he took off to put his particularly handsome mug on the little screen.
I vote for a ‘legion of lawyers’ but then, I’ve always been a sucker for alliteration…
Criminal Lawyer Blog Roundup
If you don’t count hosting Blog Review, or my Criminal Law Blog Poll, it’s been awhile since I’ve done one of these, so here goes:Shawn Matlock writes about the ‘Business of Winning’ criminal cases, and Stephen Gustitis follows up with…