Recent developments in the legal industry have sparked discussions around the concept known as the ‘straight face’ argument, a phrase often used to describe how lawyers present weak arguments when their cases are on the verge of losing. This tactic is typically deployed in situations where the argument is so lacking in substance that it becomes laughably thin, thus earning the moniker ‘straight face’ argument. The poet Carl Sandburg once described such a scenario as one where, if the law and the facts are against you, the only hope lies in creating a scene.
More details on ‘straight face’ argument cases
One recent example bringing this argument to the fore involves Viet Dinh, the former chief legal and policy officer at Fox. Despite the disastrous legal fallout from false claims during the 2020 election, which resulted in Fox paying substantial sums to Dominion, Dinh has yet to accept any responsibility. Instead, he has chosen to lay blame on others, notably expressing his dissatisfaction with the Delaware judge who presided over the case.
A similar incident involves a dismissed Arizona Maricopa County prosecutor who, during her bar disciplinary hearing, justified her prosecution of a bystander photographing a protest under the pretext of the bystander being a ‘gang member’. Despite no evidence to support this claim, the prosecutor proceeded, seemingly carrying out actions based on pure speculation.
Such instances raise questions and concerns about the use (or misuse) of the ‘straight face’ argument. The case of a judge who texted about a trial in which she was presiding is another prime example of deviating from professional standards and conduct.
These recent events force the legal community to reconsider the usage and relevancy of the ‘straight face’ argument. Is it still a viable approach, or has it become an excuse for poor legal strategy and practice?
One of the biggest concerns is how perpetrators, when found culpable of misconduct, seldom acknowledge or apologize for their actions. The seeming lack of responsibility and accountability further solidifies the perception that the ‘straight face’ argument is a blanket excuse for poor legal posturing and conduct.
As employers and legal professionals evaluate their practices in response to such events, it remains to be seen if the ‘straight face’ argument will continue to hold water in the future.