Criminal defense lawyers often grab attention because they frequently handle high-profile cases, making them a much-discussed and debated group within the legal community. In the past, the criminal defense field was divided into various "schools" or factions—approaches that some lawyers adopted as their own or distinguished themselves from others. Fortunately, plenty of online resources already cover these distinctions in detail, so we won’t delve into them here. Instead, let’s now explore the issue of professional practice styles—styles that have nothing to do with specific "schools." The real value of discussing this topic lies not in passing personal judgments on one style or another, but rather in helping young lawyers navigate their choices and make informed decisions for their careers.

A lawyer's style can manifest in many ways. When analyzing a case, some lawyers adopt a bold, straightforward approach, while others prefer a more meticulous, nuanced method. In terms of professional confrontation, some are aggressively assertive, whereas others remain calm and refined. When communicating with clients, some take a proactive stance, while others tend to be more reserved. As for their strategic approach, some lawyers work best independently, while others thrive in collaborative settings. And when it comes to crafting their defense strategies, some aim to cover every angle thoroughly, while others focus on delivering a single, decisive knockout blow. It’s safe to say that each style has its own merits and deserves its place in the legal landscape.

There are two distinct styles: one favors taking on more cases with lower fees—what I call the "low margin, high volume" approach—and the other focuses on handling fewer, high-quality cases at premium rates—a strategy I refer to as "meticulous cultivation." The main topic of this article is precisely these two approaches: "low margin, high volume" practices versus the art of precision defense. This subject runs much deeper than it initially appears, with implications that go far beyond surface-level considerations.

First of all, we should note that many lawyers—regardless of their fame, years of practice, or age—are working tirelessly every day. Beyond meetings and other activities, their primary focus remains on handling cases. One notable characteristic of this busy schedule is that these lawyers are almost always juggling at least several dozen cases simultaneously. Each case demands a significant portion of their time and energy, leaving them with little room to delve deeply into any single matter. As a result, they often can only skim the surface—approaching client meetings, reviewing case files, analyzing legal issues, conducting thorough investigations, or engaging in meaningful discussions with prosecutors and judges—with limited attention to detail. Experienced, highly skilled lawyers, however, possess the keen insight to quickly identify the core issues plaguing each case. By the time courtroom proceedings begin, they’re already equipped to deliver powerful, decisive defenses—often hitting the nail on the head with precision and impact. In contrast, lawyers whose expertise falls short may struggle even to pinpoint the central problem, let alone devise effective strategies. Lacking familiarity with critical case details, they’re left relying on generic, formulaic arguments—essentially reciting pre-written rhetoric rather than engaging in a dynamic, substantive debate. Sometimes, local officials from the public prosecution, police, courts, and justice departments even make the trip to the courtroom, hoping to witness firsthand the courtroom prowess of renowned lawyers from major cities. Yet, more often than not, they leave disappointed. Without a robust clash of facts and legally relevant issues, their observations are reduced to superficial discussions about abstract principles or emotional appeals—lacking the sharp, professional edge that makes courtroom battles truly compelling and worth watching.

A particularly typical example is how lawyers perform in criminal legal aid cases. I conducted a dedicated study on this issue, and the detailed data analysis can be found in my article titled "Quality Control in Criminal Legal Aid." Even today, we still frequently encounter legal aid lawyers at detention centers, armed with multiple sets of visitation paperwork, making their first, last-minute meeting with defendants right before trial—often managing to see four or five individuals in a single morning. Of course, there are both systemic and financial challenges facing legal aid programs, as well as inherent dilemmas that drive these dedicated lawyers to balance passion with practical constraints. While I won’t delve into those specifics here, what’s clear from examining case numbers and workloads is that this model leans heavily toward high-volume, low-margin practices. In fact, many law firms rely almost exclusively on this type of work for their livelihood. Yet, regrettably, a significant number of lawyers adopt the same approach when handling cases entrusted by private clients—tending to treat defense duties superficially rather than thoroughly. As a result, clients hoping for regular, meaningful interactions with their attorneys may find themselves largely disappointed. And when it comes to visiting clients held in detention facilities, the situation becomes even more challenging: throughout the entire representation process, securing just two or three meetings is often considered exceptional.

Why is this happening? From my observations, there are roughly three reasons.

The first scenario arises when young lawyers, overwhelmed by a tight caseload and feeling mentally stretched thin, start to panic after just 10 or 20 days without taking on new cases. Once they feel anxious, they end up accepting every case that comes their way—no matter how small or time-consuming—believing that more is better. The busier they get, the more fulfilled they feel, but over time, this unhealthy cycle sets in: cases pile up faster than ever, leading them to rush through each one carelessly, barely giving proper attention to the details.

The second scenario arises intentionally, driven by the lawyer’s goodwill and desire for personal peace of mind. Some seasoned, well-established lawyers—already recognized in their field and enjoying a steady flow of cases—find themselves unable to politely decline requests from friends or colleagues. As a result, they agree to take on these cases. However, since criminal matters are inherently unpredictable, it’s often difficult for them to deliver the outcomes their clients ideally hope for. To ease their own conscience and avoid any lingering guilt, these lawyers offer particularly favorable rates. This approach not only prevents placing an undue financial burden on the client but also allows the lawyer to handle the case with minimal personal effort—winning over both parties in the process. Over time, this pricing strategy becomes widely known within the legal community, eventually solidifying into a consistent style that’s hard to deviate from, even if one might consider changing it later.

The third scenario arises when lawyers simply don’t have enough time and are left with no other choice. This often happens to experienced, high-ranking attorneys whose schedules are already half consumed by attending meetings—or even commuting to and from these gatherings. While attending meetings is primarily driven by a sense of social and professional responsibility, putting service first, there’s also a practical consideration: leveraging these events to expand their influence and attract new cases. In such situations, "repeat clients" aren’t the main focus; instead, lawyers rely heavily on the ripple effect of their growing influence, along with collaborations with new colleagues and followers, to continuously generate fresh opportunities.

Besides the above, there’s actually a fourth scenario—what was discussed earlier in this article: resource-oriented lawyers who’ve grown accustomed to effortless, informal “maneuvering” involving personal connections, rather than embracing the hard work required for thorough, professional defense. No matter how many cases they take on, their real effort lies elsewhere—they don’t bother delving into those dazzlingly complex pieces of evidence, nor do they painstakingly analyze the mind-bending legal issues at play. For now, we’ll set this particular group aside and leave them out of further discussion.

This style may be difficult for seasoned lawyers to adapt, but it demands serious attention from younger attorneys. In the business world, "low margin, high volume" strategies often involve lowering prices—even at the expense of slightly reduced product quality—as long as the goods still meet basic standards, thereby boosting overall sales. However, legal services differ significantly from tangible products: there are no rigid, standardized production or quality-control benchmarks. A single case could involve just two client meetings—or it might require ten. Similarly, reviewing case files could mean skimming through them once, or meticulously examining them three times. And while a verdict might land on a decade-long prison sentence, it could also result in a three-year suspended sentence. At first glance, these subtle nuances of legal advocacy may go unnoticed. Yet over time, their true impact becomes as clear as the quality of a home or the craftsmanship of its renovation—shaping not just outcomes, but also deep-seated perceptions and trust. Ultimately, this intangible aspect of legal representation translates into tangible, heartfelt evaluations that resonate with clients and even those around them, like colleagues or friends who hear about cases firsthand.

If young professionals immerse themselves in a flood of cases right from the start of their careers, the likely outcome—due to insufficient time and effort invested—will be subpar, poorly crafted work that ultimately harms their clients' interests. And for the lawyers themselves, this approach is more harmful than helpful; no matter how many years they dedicate to their practice, they’ll never truly become highly respected, top-tier attorneys.

In recent years, several innovative law firms have emerged, specializing in relatively straightforward cases—such as drunk-driving or traffic accident cases. These firms leverage artificial intelligence technologies and adopt streamlined, business-oriented management models, placing a strong emphasis on marketing and back-office operations. Meanwhile, practicing lawyers are treated as cogs in an assembly-line system, tasked solely with appearing in court after the initial preparation of case materials. As a result, individual attorneys can now handle hundreds of courtroom appearances each year. This new legal service model has fundamentally disrupted traditional law firm operating structures, proving particularly effective in terms of cost control, operational efficiency, and profitability—benefits that ultimately translate into significant advantages for clients. However, many criminal cases still demand highly personalized services. While AI and assembly-line approaches excel at handling simpler, faster-tracked cases—those that resolve quickly and share common characteristics—they fall short when it comes to addressing the unique complexities of more intricate, multi-stage proceedings. For instance, in a typical criminal case involving investigation, prosecution review, and trial, it’s hard to imagine how specialized roles like client communication, prison visits, evidence gathering, drafting legal documents, and courtroom advocacy could seamlessly collaborate. Without clear coordination among these roles, it becomes challenging to identify strategic defense angles or achieve meaningful outcomes. On the flip side, for young lawyers entering the profession, joining a law firm or team structured around this assembly-line model—even if it fosters some level of expertise in specific types of cases or particular defense phases—may inadvertently limit their ability to develop a holistic understanding of legal processes. Without cultivating independent, proactive thinking tailored to each case, they risk becoming mere "tools" in the system. Over time, this could erode their initial passion and vision for pursuing a career in law, while also undermining their capacity for adaptability and problem-solving. Ultimately, such a narrow focus might hinder their long-term professional growth and competitiveness in an increasingly dynamic legal market.

In contrast to the "low margin, high volume" approach, many lawyers have chosen a more meticulous, hands-on working model, embracing a refined style of advocacy. At its core, this approach emphasizes precision in every aspect—whether it’s thoroughly examining the facts of the case, carefully analyzing legal applications, or engaging effectively with clients and investigators. Lawyers often meet with their clients multiple times to gain a deep understanding of their defense arguments and supporting evidence, meticulously verifying the facts of the case—a step that’s crucial for uncovering fresh leads. They also rely on systematic document review, repeatedly scrutinizing case files, creating detailed comparison charts, and identifying procedural flaws or evidentiary weaknesses along the way. Moreover, by thoughtfully weighing legal principles from both sides—considering both prosecution and defense perspectives—they occasionally experience moments of sudden insight, illuminating complex legal relationships with clarity. Finally, maintaining open and constructive communication with investigators fosters collaboration, helps prioritize key issues, and ultimately prevents wasted effort by focusing precisely where it matters most.

In short, every step reflects a profound commitment to excellence, which inevitably leads to rewarding surprises. Naturally, this approach comes at a significant cost—both in terms of workload and time. Handling just one complex case can often require as much effort as managing several cases for other lawyers, potentially impacting their overall income from legal fees. Particularly noteworthy is the fact that the duration of a case directly correlates with the level of dedication the lawyer invests. The more thoroughly a lawyer tackles a case, the slower the criminal proceedings tend to move. This is because the quality of the lawyer’s work prompts judges and prosecutors to carefully consider and weigh each detail, leading to deeper deliberation rather than hasty decisions or rulings. As a result, these cases typically take many times longer to conclude compared to those handled by less meticulous attorneys—and naturally, this also significantly reduces the "turnover rate" for lawyers taking on new cases. (To be continued)