If you’re shopping for a good lawyer, look no further. The just-ended Supreme Court presidential election petitions hearing showcased some of the country’s star lawyers.

The hearing was a spectacle of lawyerly, and not so lawyerly, skills and characteristics.

It was a live show and a parade of adversarial talents that you’re unlikely to see anywhere else, in one short week and on national television.
But just what constitutes a good lawyer?

The quality that seemed to matter most is good communication skills. Those are the skills that won the day, charmed the judges and won the attention of the media.

Closely allied to those skills are courtroom presence and confidence. The courtroom is a kind of theatre. The lawyer needs to think on his feet and assert his dominance without looking arrogant.

The third quality that a lawyer needed to wow the judges is knowledge of the law, the rules of the game and the facts of the case.

A lawyer must have the ability to see through the issues and argue logically. He must keep track of all the arguments of the opposing side and demolish them while looking calm and relaxed.

The fourth most important quality is good judgment. This is the ability to assess a situation and say things that would ensure the best possible outcome for your client. This goes beyond a mere knowledge of the law.

There were many other qualities that were displayed inside and outside the courtroom, such as interpersonal skills, negotiating skills, fearlessness and good writing skills.

There were also many other qualities that were not on display, such as organisational and technological skills.

The choice of a lawyer, ultimately, depends on the job you want done. In the Supreme Court hearing it was not always easy to say conclusively from one exchange who the right lawyer for the job was. Sample this:

Donald Deya, counsel for Africog, began by saying it was his first time to address the court and “please allow me to say good afternoon” and “what a pleasure it is and a thrill as a Kenyan lawyer”. Then he offended a senior counsel by saying, apparently reading: “In contradiction to provisions of article 81, and this will come out as the case goes on, the process has been opaque, it’s been clumsy, it’s been inefficient, it’s been inaccurate, it has been unaccountable to such a level any results coming out of it is actually incredible.”

Aurelio Rebello, counsel for IEBC: “So this young man should not look up Roget’s Thesaurus, find a word like opaque and find every other word that means the same just to show off to this court that he knows a little English.”

Justice Ojwang’: “Mr Rebello, there is the question of decorum in the court.”

Mr Rebello: “I appreciate.”

Justice Ojwang’: “If you are unhappy or very angry don’t pour it out here in court. You must respect the counsel.”

Mr Rebello: “I apologise. But comments like that are deliberately intended to insult and I’m sorry if at this late hour I lose my sense of decorum.”

Which of the two lawyers would you choose?

Link to the story