Though certainly a rewarding profession, lawyering is difficult. Words matter. Client advisories and timing of same matter. Interactions with clients, government agencies, attorney colleagues, courts, and others may be scrutinized at any time and under the strongest of microscopes.
Attention to detail is critical.
Yet, the fast-paced society in which lawyers currently operate tends to sometimes (if not many times) overlook, ignore, or discredit the amount of time it takes for lawyers to properly perform their duties for client, which, pursuant to the Texas Lawyer’s Creed, must be performed while being ever mindful of the profession’s broader duty to the legal system.
The “attention-to-detail” aspect of this profession was reinforced by Justice James C. Ho, the author of United States of America vs. Davis, No. 23-20475, at pg. 1 (5th Cir. May 16, 2025). Through the opinion, Justice Ho provided a sharp reminder that attorneys’ work requires meticulous attention to detail:
Lawyers’ work is careful work. Attention to detail is critical. A mistake that might be immaterial in other professions can be devastating for attorneys and their clients. See, e.g., Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 212 n.4 (2007) (noting that the Supreme Court “refused to accept a petition for certiorari submitted by Ryan Heath Dickson because it had been filed one day late,” so he was “executed on April 26, 2007, without any Member of this Court having even seen his petition for certiorari”); Northwest Airlines, Inc. v. Spirit Airlines, Inc., 549 U.S. 805 (2006) (missing deadline by a few days precluded certiorari in multi-million dollar dispute); Lyle Denniston, A move to salvage a big antitrust case, SCOTUSblog.com, July 31, 2006 (same); Josh Barbanel, Attack of the Fine Print, N.Y. Times, July 24, 2009 (“an error of a single digit in an arcane document—the densely worded 732-page offering plan—could . . . cost the sponsors . . . tens of millions of dollars in lost revenue”).
So too here. Gravity Capital may well have an interest in property subject to criminal forfeiture. But their petition was signed on behalf of the wrong entity—Gravity Funding, not Gravity Capital. The consequence of this drafting error is that the petition fails, and any asserted property interest is forfeited. That’s what the district court held, and today, we affirm.
Davis, No. 23-20475, at Opin. pg. 1.
The Davis opinion provides some assurance or confidence that it is acceptable, if not necessary, for time to not always be the most important factor in evaluating a lawyer’s performance of duties. Carefully attention to detail and thoughtful approach to legal challenges are likely the greater hallmarks of excellence for those who choose lawyering as a profession. Vigilance and an instinct to act timely, not hastily, are also key, and the “attention-to-detail” lesson learned from the Davis opinion dovetails quite nicely with the mantra provided in Hannan v. Dusch, 154 Va. 356 (1930): “The law helps those who help themselves, generally aids the vigilant, but rarely the sleeping, and never the acquiescent.”
