If your client does not appear for a court date and you don't have a good explanation, i.e., funeral / hospital / in jail, do you argue to stay a bench warrant?
In my mind, that seemed to be part of this job. At least sometimes, there's an argument like, "My client has made all other scheduled appearances" or "My client just told me yesterday that she'd be here, it's possible that there was a last minute transportation / childcare / health problem and she's already left me a message, can you stay the warrant?"
Because most of the attorneys in my office have so many years of experience, they've all developed their own work habits. This is one of those habits - unless they have heard a good reason from their client, they don't argue to stay a warrant. They also get annoyed when I choose to do things that they do not include in their routines. I don't think they realize that when I choose to do something that may be fruitless but hey, why not try, they get snippy with questions like, "Why bother? What's the point?" It's true - most of what I do in court is a foregone conclusion. But don't beat me down for trying. I don't see what the problem is with just trying. In some cases, I have no good argument - the client has every reason to flee the jurisdiction or not show up - and I don't try to argue against those. I can't try and vouch for every client because then I lose my credibility before the court. That's what attorneys say when they tell me not to argue at all. But I don't think that's necessarily the case. I don't think this is useless advocacy. I don't think I need a foolproof reason to argue against issuance of a bench warrant. Let me wear down on my own time - if I find that sort of practice habit doesn't work for me, let me eliminate it myself.
How does arguing against a bench warrant differ from, say, filing a suppression motion? You know that you will probably lose, but that doesn't stop you from making the argument. And you never know, you might get a judge feeling particularly law-like that day, and just maybe they'll see your argument and just might agree with you. It's not useless to file suppression motions - although it may be fruitless.
For practitioners, students, observers, and citizens out there: What do you think? If you were sitting in the audience watching a courtroom or if you were a client or if this were your case, what would you say? Do you try to argue against a warrant being issued for the client's arrest, or do you just chill until they're hauled back into court? Does it matter whether you think the client will get thrown in on bail when they're brought before the court?