An author I read was interviewed about his latest book recently.  The interviewer certainly allowed the author to pitch his new book, but also introduced us as listeners to the author as a person.  She asked about his past and his family and his hobbies.  She noted his first career as a lawyer and facilitated the story of how he transitioned from legal eagle to writer. 

I’d heard the story elsewhere, including his books.  But what I hadn’t heard, thanks to the diligence and preparation of the interviewer, was that the lawyer had never lost a case.  Never.  In 30-some years of lawyering had he never been on the ‘losing’ side of a decision.  

With equal parts sincere and feigned humility, the author gave an aww shucks chuckle: ‘I’m not that good at winning, I’m just really good at picking cases I can win.’  

What struck me was the ‘both and’ nature of his response.  This lawyer was sincerely humble while being a really good lawyer.  There’s no doubt he’s won his share of paper-based property disputes, yet he’s also renown for winning cases in the highest courts in the harshest places for the most heinous of crimes.   

Capitalism has as one of its core tenets, competition: companies competing against other companies for customer attention and share of wallet.  Within companies, there is competition for executive attention and budget and in the market there’s a ‘war for talent.’  It’s a lot of ‘win/lose’ or ‘win-win-win’ positioning (gratuitous The Office reference).  No one wins all the time. 

It's not possible is it?  To win *all the time*?  For mere mortals, anyway?

So how did the lawyer-turned-author win all the time?   For starters, he must have been really talented, worked really hard and was ridiculously good looking.  Winning, by definition, means beating an opponent in a competition.  Base talent will get some wins, but lots of talent gets more.

Second, he must be really good at choosing which cases to take.  I wonder if his win-loss record is more about his fluency with ‘no’ than his ability to say ‘yes’. This would suggest that: 

• He knows his area of expertise and says ’no’ to opportunities outside those bounds. 

• He does enough due diligence to determine which cases are bound to lose and which cases have a chance of winning. 

• He has margin to say ‘no.’ A mandatory ‘yes’ to meet payroll next week decreases the odds of winning.

• He has the confidence to say ’no.’ He said ’no’ before and his firm survived.

• He has the support to say ’no.’ His wife won’t leave him if he says ’no.’ (And for the record, she won’t leave him if he loses.  He asked.).

And yet he still wins.  He has broken all of these ‘rules’ and still wins.  He has won in cases in which he has no legal background, in jurisdictions he’s not even qualified to practice and lost everything financially.  Is it ‘favor’ from God?  Some kind of Jedi trick he exercises on Judge and jury?  

I don’t know.  But I do know that the odds of winning increase with talent, preparation, margin, confidence and support. 

Favor also helps.