The Myth of the “Killer Litigator”

Posted bystenoimperiumPosted inCourt Reporting, Legal ServicesTags:, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

For twenty years, I have sat in courtrooms across California, capturing the record in every type of case you can imagine. As a certified court reporter with over twenty years in the courtroom, I’ve been the quiet witness to it all. From capital murder, medical malpractice, family law battles, juvenile proceedings, asbestos and toxic tort trials, complex civil disputes with billion-dollar stakes—I’ve written down every word. I’ve seen the best litigators in the country argue in front of juries, sway judges, and walk out of court with verdicts in the high multi-million-dollar range.

And I can tell you this with absolute certainty: the best litigators are not the ones who scream.

Hollywood vs. Reality

Television and film have done much to cement a stereotype: the ruthless, cutthroat attorney who dominates the courtroom by sheer force of personality. From Harvey Specter’s swagger to Alan Shore’s quips to Perry Mason’s dramatic reveals, popular culture has sold us on the idea of the “killer litigator.”

In this myth, the lawyer who wins is the one who interrupts, who out-shouts their opponent, who cuts witnesses off mid-sentence, who sneers, mocks, and “destroys.” It makes for compelling drama on screen. But in real courtrooms? That approach rarely earns lasting victories—and even less often earns respect.

What Experience Teaches

When you’ve observed thousands of hours of trials, patterns emerge. And one pattern is this: the loudest voice in the room is rarely the most persuasive.

The attorneys who leave their mark are the ones who understand discipline. They don’t raise their voice unless it’s absolutely necessary. They structure their cross-examinations with surgical precision, so that the witness walks into the box and walks out having built the attorney’s case for them. They keep the jury engaged not with theatrics but with clarity.

I’ve seen jurors lean forward when a lawyer asks a simple, clean, well-timed question. I’ve seen them roll their eyes when an attorney bellows or bullies. The difference is unmistakable.

The Strength of Restraint

True courtroom presence doesn’t come from intimidation. It comes from confidence—quiet confidence that the facts, properly presented, will carry the day.

The best litigators:

  • Trust their preparation. They know their case inside out, so they don’t need to hide behind volume or bluster.
  • Respect the process. They allow witnesses to finish answers, and they know when silence works in their favor.
  • Build credibility. Judges and juries trust them because they speak with purpose, not ego.
  • Read the room. They know when to press and when to pause, when to push harder and when to step back.

That doesn’t mean they’re soft. It means they’re disciplined. Restraint is not weakness. It’s strategy.

Respect Extends Beyond the Jury Box

Here’s something few outside the profession ever think about: the very best litigators also understand the importance of professional respect for everyone in the courtroom—including the court reporter.

After two decades of writing down every word, I can tell you who treats the record as an afterthought and who treats it as sacred. The strongest advocates always fall into the second category.

They greet the reporter by name. They make eye contact before launching into rapid questioning. When they feel themselves speeding up, they glance over to check that I can keep pace. They spell out technical terms and difficult surnames before or after examination. They clarify when an order is urgent, making sure that any expedite requests are understood and manageable.

It’s a small thing, but it speaks volumes. The attorneys who understand that accuracy is built on respect—not just for their own client, but for the process—are the ones who ultimately win not only cases, but reputations.

The Cost of the “Killer” Persona

I’ve also seen the other side: the lawyer who believes aggression equals effectiveness. They cut people off, they roll their eyes, they talk over witnesses. Sometimes they even attempt to intimidate the reporter, demanding readbacks in a tone better suited to a drill sergeant than an officer of the court.

Those lawyers may score short-term victories, but they often lose something more important: credibility. Judges tire of needless interruptions. Juries see through the bluster. Court staff become reluctant allies rather than helpful resources. And the record itself—the most critical product of the entire proceeding—becomes less reliable when the lawyer treats it as a nuisance instead of the foundation on which appeals, verdicts, and justice itself stand.

Why Calm Advocacy Wins

When I think back on the lawyers who’ve impressed me most, the common thread is simple: calm, principled advocacy.

In one toxic tort trial, a lawyer cross-examined a witness for two hours without once raising his voice. His questions were so clear, so deliberate, that by the time he finished, the jury understood the heart of the case without any grandstanding. The verdict was eight figures in his client’s favor.

In a high-profile murder trial, a defense attorney dismantled the prosecution’s key witness with a series of short, precise questions. No sarcasm, no yelling—just careful, methodical work. The jury acquitted.

And in countless civil disputes, I’ve watched lawyers quietly hand me lists of technical terms and doctor’s names, ensuring the record was perfect, because they knew that precision was not optional—it was essential.

Lessons for Young Litigators

If you’re a law student or young attorney dreaming of your first big trial, here’s what two decades in the well of the courtroom have taught me:

  1. Volume doesn’t equal persuasion. Control your voice; don’t let it control you.
  2. Respect the record. Court reporters are not accessories. We are the guardians of history. Help us help you.
  3. Think long-term. Every interaction builds or chips away at your credibility. A single “killer moment” is nothing compared to a reputation for fairness and precision.
  4. Prepare relentlessly. The attorneys who command the room are the ones who know their facts so well they can argue without posturing.
  5. Trust discipline. Juries respond not to noise but to clarity.

Leaving the Myth Behind

The myth of the “killer litigator” is seductive because it makes good television. But the courtroom is not a stage. It is the crucible where liberty, family, property, even life itself is at stake. In that arena, what endures is not the attorney who shouts the loudest but the one who advocates with integrity, discipline, and respect.

The lawyers who win verdicts, earn reputations, and gain the admiration of everyone in the room—from jurors to judges to court staff—are not the killers. They are the builders: of cases, of credibility, and of trust.

As someone who has heard it all, I can say this without hesitation: the myth of the killer litigator belongs in Hollywood. The future of real advocacy belongs to those who know that calm is power, respect is strategy, and clarity is everything.

StenoImperium
Court Reporting. Unfiltered. Unafraid.

Disclaimer

“This article includes analysis and commentary based on observed events, public records, and legal statutes.”

The content of this post is intended for informational and discussion purposes only. All opinions expressed herein are those of the author and are based on publicly available information, industry standards, and good-faith concerns about nonprofit governance and professional ethics. No part of this article is intended to defame, accuse, or misrepresent any individual or organization. Readers are encouraged to verify facts independently and to engage constructively in dialogue about leadership, transparency, and accountability in the court reporting profession.

  • The content on this blog represents the personal opinions, observations, and commentary of the author. It is intended for editorial and journalistic purposes and is protected under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.
  • Nothing here constitutes legal advice. Readers are encouraged to review the facts and form independent conclusions.

***To unsubscribe, just smash that UNSUBSCRIBE button below — yes, the one that’s universally glued to the bottom of every newsletter ever created. It’s basically the “Exit” sign of the email world. You can’t miss it. It looks like this (brace yourself for the excitement):

Published by stenoimperium

We exist to facilitate the fortifying of the Stenography profession and ensure its survival for the next hundred years! As court reporters, we've handed the relationship role with our customers, or attorneys, over to the agencies and their sales reps.  This has done a lot of damage to our industry.  It has taken away our ability to have those relationships, the ability to be humanized and valued.  We've become a replaceable commodity. Merely saying we are the “Gold Standard” tells them that we’re the best, but there are alternatives.  Who we are though, is much, much more powerful than that!  We are the Responsible Charge.  “Responsible Charge” means responsibility for the direction, control, supervision, and possession of stenographic & transcription work, as the case may be, to assure that the work product has been critically examined and evaluated for compliance with appropriate professional standards by a licensee in the profession, and by sealing and signing the documents, the professional stenographer accepts responsibility for the stenographic or transcription work, respectively, represented by the documents and that applicable stenographic and professional standards have been met.  This designation exists in other professions, such as engineering, land surveying, public water works, landscape architects, land surveyors, fire preventionists, geologists, architects, and more.  In the case of professional engineers, the engineering association adopted a Responsible Charge position statement that says, “A professional engineer is only considered to be in responsible charge of an engineering work if the professional engineer makes independent professional decisions regarding the engineering work without requiring instruction or approval from another authority and maintains control over those decisions by the professional engineer’s physical presence at the location where the engineering work is performed or by electronic communication with the individual executing the engineering work.” If we were to adopt a Responsible Charge position statement for our industry, we could start with a draft that looks something like this: "A professional court reporter, or stenographer, is only considered to be in responsible charge of court reporting work if the professional court reporter makes independent professional decisions regarding the court reporting work without requiring instruction or approval from another authority and maintains control over those decisions by the professional court reporter’s physical presence at the location where the court reporting work is performed or by electronic communication with the individual executing the court reporting work.” Shared purpose The cornerstone of a strategic narrative is a shared purpose. This shared purpose is the outcome that you and your customer are working toward together. It’s more than a value proposition of what you deliver to them. Or a mission of what you do for the world. It’s the journey that you are on with them. By having a shared purpose, the relationship shifts from consumer to co-creator. In court reporting, our mission is “to bring justice to every litigant in the U.S.”  That purpose is shared by all involved in the litigation process – judges, attorneys, everyone.  Who we are is the Responsible Charge.  How we do that is by Protecting the Record.

Leave a comment