I am not a fan of speed in court for the sake of moving fast.  However, I believe that lawyers have an annoying tendency to repeat themselves over and over - in the hope of being more persuasive.  It just turns out to be boring.  

Many lawyers also mistake the quantity of evidence for quality. There is a difference.

Just for comparison - OJ’s capital murder trial lasted 11 months with jury selection taking up about 3 of those months.  

I defended a capital case, as a young lawyer, where we picked the jury in one day and had a verdict on day 5.  I know most of this depends on the prosecutor, I get that -  but you can get to the point and still be effective.  

On the civil side of things, I recently tried a car wreck case to a jury where all of the evidence was completed in less than 90 minutes.  We had 2 witnesses.  My client had been treated and released from the ER.  

The outcome wasn’t compromised by efficiency:  we got a $100,000 verdict against the insurance company’s offer of $3,500.  And, in the process, we respected the judge and jury's time.  

Does it pay to hire a personal injury lawyer?  Well, it did for my client.    And, icing on the cake -  we didn't waste the court or the juror's time.