The rules of advocacy were meant to allow attorneys to evaluate their trial tactics in a logical manner.
The Rules Of Advocacy are not meant to be a complete list of rules governing litigation tactics, nor were they meant to be strictly followed.
These rules were written down as a general set of rules for litigation along with the reasoning behind them. If there is a reason to break a rule that outweighs the reasoning behind it then the rule should be broken. These rules were developed from my experience and understanding on how to engage in effective advocacy. They are based on my experience handling cases, and what has worked for me. They were developed on the belief that without a general set of rules as a starting point an attorney would be left to reinvent the wheel on every case, which would result in an ineffective and inefficient way to litigate cases. Also by having a general set of rules an attorney will be in a much better position to evaluate their litigation skills going forward.
Whenever I deviate from one of my rules I always ask myself if I benefited from breaking the rule. If I break a rule without justification the answer is generally no. Therefore in a way this is an attempt to add an element of science to the art of advocacy.
