Hmm, but:

I’ll use misdirection to get the opposing counsel thinking I’m heading in one direction

This is the wrong lesson. He's good at exploiting the legal system, that's all. It's not about who is right, it's about who has the cleverer lawyer. All this guy's "experience" is zero-sum, he's creating no wealth, he's purely parasitic. He's like a salesman who sells you something you don't want just because he's good at persuasion. Why would you want to teach the next generation of lawyers to milk their clients more effectively?

Again, the point remains (and should not be clouded by animosity towards lawyers) that its a huge win for everyone if leaders in every field teach the young their hardearned lessons. Perhaps the OP would have been more effective describing a less controversial field.

"Perhaps the OP would have been more effective describing a less controversial field."

Exactly! As I read the article, my feeling was he was being disingenuous, condescendingly mocking the lawyer and his profession.

Then the final two sections, generalizing his advice to the lawyer for other professionals, seemed like a gloss.

In an adversarial system like the US and the UK each side in the case is expected to put up the best argument possible presenting their side of the case - it's not about them presenting the "truth" (although they obviously can't lie).

You got the word order wrong on that last - it should be "they can't obviously lie".

I read a passage on a standardized exam once that led me to believe that of the US and UK, only the US was adversarial, and the UK was more inquisitorial. The point of the exam passage was the contrast: in the UK, for example, both sides had to present all of the evidence they had. Not so in the US. Perhaps it's more of a sliding scale between the systems than a dichotomy.

Now, I have to admit I never followed up on this, maybe the passage was fictionalized.

US and UK have pretty much the same legal system. The French legal system is inquisitorial and pretty much all of Europe or is it the world except for the common wealth?

A great lawyer must be agnostic. His job is to find a settlement in favor of his clients. He must manipulate the context to create a situation where his client wins by a landslide, using whatever means possible.

There is no such thing as "exploiting the legal system". There is only winning for your clients. Otherwise you're making excuses why you can't win for your clients.

Logical conclusion: A great lawyer is willing to blackmail or assassinate any unfavorable judges or jurors who can't be eliminated through legal means.

Surely you don't believe that actually falls under any reasonable definition of good?

Four downvotes, zero comments. I don't mind the downvotes at all, but I would expect better from HN users than to downvote without offering any contribution themselves. Is my logic invalid? Do you not like my example? Are you simply opposed to three-character usernames? Simply downvoting does nothing to correct any deficiencies you might see in a comment.

You forgot to factor long-term risk. If I got caught assassinating Judges/Jurors -- the impact for the company would be worse than losing whatever court case was being decided. Hence winning is important - but you need to play by the rules to make it in the long run.

Well, for one, knowing an attack strategy makes it easier to defend against. Moreover, if the strategy is fair, it levels the playing field; if the strategy is unfair, making it public increases the chance that the legal system will be adjusted to plug the holes.

Now, now, trial by combat has a long and venerable history...

Seriously, though, before you can defend against a strategy, you have to recognize and understand it.

It's important to remember that the legal system isn't perfect. It's just more perfect than the known alternatives.

Trial by combat was no joke. It was the process for centuries. It presumably had the virtue of resolving disputes in a manner short of war or century-long blood feud, and its obvious bias -- toward the better fighter -- was, I'm guessing, a design feature: In the absence of government police, any judicial system that didn't weigh the odds in favor of the stronger party was liable to be ignored in favor of extrajudicial violence. Why take a guy to trial rather than just stab him in a bar fight? Well, if the trial resembles a bar fight, but one in which the winner emerges with a clean reputation and clean legal record, nobody has anything to lose by going to trial.

But it literally involved losing limbs and eyes, followed in short order by either the legal rights or the life of the loser. I like the lawyer system better.

I said it was a venerable history ... and like you, I prefer the wimpy modern version. Less interesting as a spectator perhaps, but much to be preferred as a participant.

Any type of trial is based on the notion that the outcome will be Fair and Just. What people consider Fair and Just changes depending on the people and the time; in some communities simple consistency is apparently enough...

Having now revealed my relativist leanings, I will point out that there are certain politicians and telemarketers that I would like to subject to that other time honored judicial fiction, er, system: Trial By Ordeal.

The trick will be finding a pond big enough and a large number of heavy stones.

No, it is the legal system that is parasitic - it allows winning participants to generate great wealth for themselves without generating anything for society. However, from the perspective of someone forced to use the system (as we all are), Tom is actually generating real wealth (or protecting the client from losing lots of money), which is anything but parasitic.

I think Tom the lawyer is a fictional character not least because he is described so sterotypicaly and what makes him be at the top of his profession is also sterotypical.