Why Overly Aggressive Military Lawyers Can Undermine Your Defense: Insights from Michael Waddington
When facing serious allegations in the military justice system, especially those involving sensitive matters like sexual assault under UCMJ Article 120, the instinct might be to hire a “tough,” aggressive lawyer who fights fire with fire. But is this always the best approach? Military defense attorney Michael Waddington, with over two decades of experience defending complex military cases, explains why unrestrained aggression from lawyers can actually harm your case and what strategic discipline truly looks like.
Introduction: The Allure and Danger of Aggressive Defense
Many clients and their families demand a “super aggressive” attorney, often inspired by dramatic portrayals of lawyers in movies and television. They want someone who will “go in there and fight like a warrior,” intimidating prosecutors, commanders, and witnesses alike. However, as Michael Waddington points out, this approach—especially when wielded without skill and experience—can backfire spectacularly. In the military justice arena, where stakes are incredibly high, and courtroom dynamics are unique, reckless aggression can destroy credibility, alienate juries, and ultimately jeopardize the defendant’s freedom.
The Problem with Aggression Without Discipline
Waddington draws an insightful analogy between inexperienced, aggressive individuals in martial arts and lawyers who rush into combat without the necessary skill set. Just as a seasoned jujitsu practitioner can easily subdue a brash but untrained opponent, a lawyer who relies solely on bluster without a strategic plan is at risk of making critical mistakes.
Aggression without a clear objective and discipline is less of an asset and more of a liability. In military defense cases, the goals might include avoiding charges altogether, preventing conviction, or steering clear of severe sentences like imprisonment or dishonorable discharge. Without a clear understanding of these goals, aggressive tactics become aimless and counterproductive.
Strategic Aggressiveness: The Special Forces Approach
True effectiveness in legal defense comes from a measured, methodical application of pressure—what Waddington likens to the tactics of special forces teams. These elite units don’t storm into objectives haphazardly; they plan meticulously, use the minimum force necessary, and apply their skills with precision. Similarly, a competent military defense lawyer applies aggression strategically—targeting weaknesses, gathering intelligence, and building a disciplined case without resorting to theatrics.
This approach extends to interactions with prosecutors, commanders, and witnesses. Instead of yelling, threatening, or humiliating witnesses—especially in sensitive cases like sexual assault—the lawyer’s role is to dismantle the prosecution’s case through fact, law, and tact. Overly aggressive behaviors, such as attempting to disparage a victim’s character with inadmissible evidence or hostile questioning, can alienate judges and jurors and lead to swift judicial rebuke.
Why Attacking the Victim is a Legal and Tactical Mistake
One of the most critical points Waddington makes concerns the common misconception that aggressively attacking the victim’s character or sexual history will help the defense. In reality, military courts have stringent rules that prevent the defense from introducing evidence solely to impugn a victim’s character or imply consent based on past behavior. Judges are quick to shut down such attempts, which can backfire and paint the defense in a negative light.
Instead, one of the best defenses in he-said-she-said sexual assault cases is establishing a “mistake of fact” regarding consent. This means demonstrating that the accused genuinely and reasonably believed consent was given. Winning such cases hinges on showing honesty and reasonableness, not on mudslinging.
The Psychological Impact of Aggression in Court
Waddington highlights the visceral reactions people have when witnessing aggressive behavior. In everyday life, seeing someone yell at or intimidate another person often triggers sympathy for the victim and distrust of the aggressor. The same dynamic unfolds in the courtroom—jurors and judges are human and can be turned off by lawyers who appear angry or disrespectful.
Effective defense lawyers understand courtroom psychology—they use calm, calculated questioning to encourage witnesses to expose inconsistencies themselves rather than resorting to shouting or hostile tactics. This subtle approach preserves the lawyer’s credibility and can be far more persuasive.
Beware of Lawyers Who Promise Aggression Without Results
In consultations, clients often encounter lawyers who promise to “destroy” the opposition, “rampage through” the prosecution, or “tear apart” witnesses. Many make grandiose claims without the foundation to back them up. Waddington advises caution: if a lawyer boasts about aggressive tactics, ask them to put it in writing. Most won’t, because talk is cheap.
Moreover, many such lawyers fail to follow through on promises of thorough investigations, interviews, or background checks. For example, indiscriminately interviewing irrelevant witnesses or conducting cursory background checks without a strategic purpose wastes time and money without advancing the case.
Choosing the Right Military Defense Lawyer
When selecting a military defense attorney, prioritize experience, skill, and strategic thinking over mere bravado. A lawyer who understands military law, the nuances of UCMJ Article 120, and courtroom dynamics will craft a defense tailored to your case’s specifics. They will fight aggressively when justified but always with a disciplined plan and respect for the legal process.
The team at González & Waddington, LLC, led by Michael and Alexandra Waddington, exemplifies this approach. With experience defending military clients worldwide in cases ranging from sexual assault to white-collar crimes, their methodical, skillful defense has led to numerous not guilty verdicts and favorable outcomes.
Conclusion: Discipline Wins Over Raw Aggression
In military justice, raw aggression without direction can do more harm than good. The best defense attorneys channel their aggression through strategic planning, legal expertise, and courtroom psychology. They avoid reckless tactics that alienate judges, juries, and witnesses, instead focusing on achieving client goals with precision and respect.
If you or a loved one face military allegations, especially under Article 120 UCMJ, seek counsel that balances assertiveness with discipline. Remember, the goal is not to win a shouting match but to defend your rights effectively and secure the best possible outcome.
For trusted military defense, contact Michael Waddington and the team at González & Waddington, LLC at 1-800-921-8607 for a consultation.
Video reference: Overly aggressive military lawyers can hurt your case by Michael Waddington