Curt Flood’s lawyer was unprepared


This comes from the “I never knew that” file.

Apparently Curt Flood’s attorney in front of the Supreme Court for his famous — and ultimately ill-fated — challenge of the reserve clause was woefully unprepared. That, via the New York Times, is the story that will be told in a documentary that will air tonight on HBO entitled “The Curious Case of Curt Flood.”

The lawyer was not just any lawyer, though. It was Arthur J. Goldberg, who was a justice on the freaking Supreme Court from 1962-1965, helping (for better or worse, depending on your point of view) take the court in a sharply more liberal direction than it had been in the past. Goldberg crafted decisions on the death penalty and privacy rights, among other things, which continue to help fuel fierce debate to this day.

Say what you want about the merits of those decisions, but you don’t make that kind of mark by half-assing things.  Goldberg had a very bad day representing Curt Flood in 1972, however, and as the story and the documentary explain, it was probably because he half-assed it:

He did not deliver pointed, persuasive arguments. He lost his place. He did not answer justices’ questions directly. He clumsily listed Flood’s season-by-season batting averages. He went past his allotted time. He repeated himself. He spoke as if he did not understand baseball, citing the several “Golden Gloves competitions” Flood won for his excellent work as a center fielder. Brad Snyder, the author of “A Well-Paid Slave,” about the Flood case, wrote that Justice William Brennan cringed at watching his friend’s struggles.

David Stebenne, Goldberg’s biographer, said Goldberg admitted that he had not prepared the way he should have, incorrectly assuming that the justices who had served with him would see the error of sticking by past decisions — and not wait any longer for Congress.

On the one hand, the effect of this may be overstated.  Most appellate judges and their clerks will tell you that, usually anyway, the judges’ minds are made up before the oral argument, based on reading and scrutinizing the legal briefs which have already been submitted.  Oral argument is used to test the preliminary decision that was made, suss out nuances which were unclear from the briefs and that kind of thing.  Sure, the arguments can change a judge’s mind, but if you’re going to strike out on one of the phases of the case, better to have a bad day at oral argument than to submit a bad brief.

That said, you should do neither. A lawyer can win a case if he or she is talented or relatively untalented. A lawyer can win a case if the law is mostly on their side or if they’re fighting an uphill battle. What a lawyer can rarely get away with, however, is being unprepared. It casts a pall on your entire case. It causes the judges to go back and look at that brief and wonder if it really was as good as they thought. It also freaks your client out, and that’s not good.

My guess: Goldberg’s awful, unprepared performance didn’t change the course of the Curt Flood case,* because the justices likely made up their minds beforehand.  But it sure as hell didn’t help.


*I don’t have HBO, so someone tell me tomorrow if the documentary comes to any strong conclusion about this.

Alex Dickerson to undergo Tommy John surgery

Tom Szczerbowski/Getty Images
Leave a comment

Alex Dickerson, recently diagnosed with a sprained UCL in his left elbow, will undergo Tommy John surgery near the end of March, Dennis Lin of The Athletic reports. Dickerson tried to rehab the injury, but he didn’t show improvement. The surgery will likely end his 2018 season.

Dickerson, 27, missed the entire 2017 season due to a bulging disk in his back, undergoing surgery for that as well. Dickerson performed well in 84 games in 2016, batting .257/.333/.455 with 10 home runs and 37 RBI across 285 plate appearances.

Dickerson was hoping to earn a spot in the Padres’ crowded outfield, but will now concede that opportunity and hope to turn things around next year.