I'm so board

Is being board certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization any different than saying you are a former prosecutor?  Does it make you a better attorney?  Is it any more than just a marketing ploy?

I’ve tried enough cases, and pled out enough cases, and written enough briefs, and practiced long enough that I can consider applying for the opportunity to become board certified in criminal law.  But do I really want to?  Should I?

It used to be mandated by the State Bar that you indicated if you were board certified, but if you were not, you also had to indicate that by saying something like “Not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization.”  I never really liked that.  Perhaps that is why I convinced myself I should eventually become board certified.

Or maybe it was the company I could keep.  Many of the best defense attorneys, prosecutors and judges are board certified in criminal law.  Yet at the same time, many are not.  And of course the opposite is true.  There are some that are board certified that I am surprised they were able to achieve the distinction.  

The ultimate question is what benefit does becoming board certified provide?  Does it make me a better lawyer?  Certainly not.  It’s all about perception, mainly by potential clients.  

The average potential client doesn’t know what it takes to become board certified.  She doesn’t know that you have to have tried so many cases, practiced so many years and have passed yet another exam to be deemed worthy of board certification.  But it looks flashy.  Just like “Former Prosecutor.”

I have no problem with an advertisement that reads “Former Prosecutor” or any derivation thereof.  It clearly helps to obtain clients who either don’t know any better, or worse yet, somehow equate being a former prosecutor with being a better defense attorney.

It’s been thoroughly discussed around the blogosphere.  Does being a former prosecutor make you a better defense attorney?  Not at all.  However, for some reason, many potential clients read that and assume either the attorney is somehow better-skilled at the completely opposite job, or worse yet, “knows” the right people in the courthouse and can somehow get a better result because of it.

Whether that is true or should be is an issue for another day.  The real issue is whether board certification is the next generation of “Former Prosecutor” branding.  Several years ago, I would have said absolutely not.  Being board certified is a worthy distinction only credited to the select few of top-tier criminal lawyers in the state.  

But now, I’m not so sure.

Don’t get me wrong.  There are a lot of board certified attorneys that are some of the best in the business, whether as defense attorneys, prosecutors or even judges.  But there are many that are not.

Becoming Board Certified is very similar to simply being added to the court-appointment list.  You have to have tried so many cases, and pled so many cases, and written so many appellate briefs.  Never there is any mention of doing those things well.

Is the attorney that has unsuccessfully tried 50 cases in the last seven years, and pled out 400 cases to no better plea deal than anyone else necessarily better than the attorney that has successfully defended 11?   Seems the “quality-versus-quantity argument” can be made here.

The question for the potential client should be “Who is the best attorney for me?”  However, there are too many marketing ploys out there.  

“Can your case be dismissed?  Call me now to find out!”

“Former Prosecutor”

“Former IRS Agent”

Does “Board Certified” belong in the same category as these marketing ploy, or is it a perfectly-valid statement of skill and qualification?

I tend to think it represents some of the best in the field.  But there are exceptions to every rule.

But what the hell do I know?

Comments

[Alton Estrada]

Hi Shawn,

I've been reading your blog for the last couple of weeks and have enjoyed it.

I've thought about getting board certified too and have not done it yet. For me it's really I just do not want to study for another exam. I thought studying for the bar would be my last effort at exams. I do not consider getting ready for trial or other things associated with practicing law the equivalent of studying for an exam like the Board.

I am curious about your not so hidden message concerning the advertisement of being a former prosecutor though. I believe there is a benefit to working at the DA's office prior to practicing criminal defense; especially in the county where you set up your private practice.

To understand the inner workings of the DA’s office, its policies and procedures, how it handles the grand jury, the relationships in the office, having been court team members with some or many of the current DA’s, etc, could be individually important or all important or at least could be of some benefit to a client.

I do believe that there are some (a few) criminal defense attorneys that are so good / great that no time in the “Office” could or would help them, however, I have seen some spare criminal defense attorneys that but for their time at the office would be even less effective without having been in.

Remember, the first job for the best Texas criminal defense attorney ever, Percy Foreman, was at the DA’s office too. He said it was crucial “to know thine enemy”. As a defense attorney maybe no truer words could be spoken.

Alton

[Matlock]

Alton, good to hear from you. Thanks for reading.

I don't want to sound as though I don't think being a former prosecutor can have its advantages. Certainly knowing the inner-workings of a given office is beneficial, not only to the lawyer but the client as well.

The problem I have is the manner is which some use that moniker. It's almost as if it is used to imply the attorney knows some secret way of getting things done. Or worse yet, that a judge or current prosecutor would do something to help out the "former prosecutor" just because of his old job.

The topic was actually brought up not too long ago in the blawgosphere, but I just never really touched on it.

[Alton Estrada]

Couldn't agree more with the innuendo some try to portray.

Keep up the good work both in and out of the courtroom and in the blogosphere. I'm checking your site, Murray Newman's, and Mark Bennett's daily. I enjoy ya'lls writings.

[Health News]

I can't believe how much of this I just wasn't aware of. Thank you for bringing more information to this topic for me. I'm truly grateful and really impressed.