A Quote by Robert Rinder

Most people assume that when you go to court and win your case that you are guaranteed to get your money. Sadly, this isn't always the case. — © Robert Rinder
Most people assume that when you go to court and win your case that you are guaranteed to get your money. Sadly, this isn't always the case.
I don't know who the great lawyers are, and I presume you can't get to them. I know of no case where it can be said for certain that they took part. They defend some people, but you can't get them to do that through your own efforts, they only defend the ones they want to defend. But I assume a case they take on must have progressed beyond the lower court. It's better not to think of them at all, otherwise you'll find the consultations with the other lawyers, their advice and their assistance, extremely disgusting and useless.
I have told somebody in court that 'I understand yours is the most important case in the world, and I'm trying to treat it as the most important case in the world, but five minutes from now I'm going to be dealing with the next person's most important case in the world.' For every litigant, theirs is the most important case.
Sadly most films only get exposure if they win an award or were in a festival, which is really difficult because those things cost money! Submitting your film to a festival or campaigning for an Oscar or a Golden Globe is very expensive. Most people don't know that, but all those events require a lot of money. If you have a small independent film, it's very hard to get the attention of people in those circles.
No one is guaranteed a spot at the top, no one is guaranteed a title shot, but all you can do is win your fight, keep training, and then maybe somewhere down the road you'll get your opportunity.
We're taught that in life, we should try to look on the bright side. Not in this case. In this case, assume rejection first. Assume you're the rule, not the exception. It's liberating. But we also know it's not an easy concept. -He's not just into you
I got the chance to argue my first case in Supreme Court, a criminal case arising in Alabama that involved the right of a defendant to counsel at a critical stage in a capital case before a trial.
It's terribly important that we extend the promise of equality that the Supreme Court and that the district court articulated in the DOMA case and in the Perry case to all Americans in all 50 states.
I was a firm believer that if you get married, then that should be it. But it's sadly not always the case; sometimes people can't remain together for whatever reason.
Remember you will not always win. Some days, the most resourceful individual will taste defeat. But there is, in this case, always tomorrow - after you have done your best to achieve success today.
Well, I - all cases to me have interest. Every case is important to somebody, the people litigating that case. But the most difficult case for me is the case where one person says a, the other person says b, and you just don't know for certain who is not telling you the truth.
When you get a certain level of resources, and you want things a certain way, I find it difficult to get too belligerent because it's not my money.In this case it is. It’s a lot easier to stand your ground and say “I want it like this” when you know it’s your money you’re spending.
I always knew it'd be difficult to balance the right of privacy and the right of free speech. I think that is a tension that we've seen in court case after court case and law after law. And we always strive to find that right balance.
I have learned so much from my dad. Perhaps the biggest thing I've learned from my dad is how to be prepared at all times... whether it's for a big court case or a hostile media interview. My dad always says "Stick to your points, focus on what you are there to get across, and try not to get sidetracked."We are often trying to communicate complicated legal cases or explain laws, and it's important to keep going back to the 3 core points you want people to take away - from interviews, from our radio shows, from meetings, and from court.
You really don't want to go to court and have the judge decide based on whether or not they're your friend, because you don't want to be thinking that the (judge's) friend is on the other side (of the court case).
There's always a reaction based on fear. People assume if you're criticizing a decision to go to war, then you're saying something against the soldiers-which is not the case.
There's always a reaction based on fear. People assume if you're criticizing a decision to go to war, then you're saying something against the soldiers-which is not the case
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!