In litigation, we often hear "facts win cases." After years of managing litigation, I have realised that in the Supreme Court, facts alone do not win cases; strategy does.

And the most critical part of that strategy is choosing the right arguing counsel. I want to share a recent experience that taught me this lesson the hard way.

We lost at every stage. The statutory appeal was dismissed. The statutory revision failed. The writ petition was not entertained.

With little hope left, we filed a letters patent appeal (LPA) before the Division Bench. This time, we engaged a non-senior counsel who had actually read our brief threadbare. She knew the record. She persuaded the Division Bench not by rhetoric, but by methodical presentation. We won. The Division Bench reversed all the earlier findings.

That victory brought us to the Supreme Court - the last forum for justice - as the opposite side challenged the Division Bench order.

For the Supreme Court, the management decided to go with a very big name - a top-billed Senior Counsel whose name alone, we thought, would carry weight. It was a conscious choice of brand over fit.

And that is where we lost.

On the day of hearing, the Bench was asking pointed questions. They wanted spontaneous answers from the record. They wanted to be persuaded on a very narrow legal point that had convinced the Division Bench. Instead, the arguing counsel was not fully familiar with the factual nuances, sought adjournments and could not gauge the pulse of the Bench. The Judges' minds were made up in the first 10 minutes and we could not chase their opinion or course-correct.

The special leave petition (SLP) was allowed against us. Years of hard work, culminating in a hard-fought LPA victory, was undone in a 15-minute hearing.

As young lawyers and in-house counsel, we are often under tremendous pressure from management to engage the "biggest" name when a matter reaches the Supreme Court. We think, "It is the Supreme Court, we must take the biggest shot."

This is a flawed approach. The Supreme Court is not a place for posturing. It is a court of persuasion.

1. The Supreme Court demands a reader, not just a speaker: A Senior who reads the brief himself, knows the paperbook page numbers and knows where your case is weak is far more valuable than a Senior who is briefed by his juniors 10 minutes before the hearing.

2. Presentation over reputation: The art in the Supreme Court is to read the judge's mind. To understand what is troubling the bench from their questions and to answer them spontaneously, with honesty and with reference to the record. Some upcoming Seniors and dedicated arguing counsel are masters at this. They prepare to persuade, not just to appear.

3. It is a strategic move: Choosing your arguing counsel is perhaps the single biggest strategic decision you take for your Supreme Court case. It should not be decided on the basis of a Google search or the fee charged. It should be decided on: who will give my case time? Who will own it? Who can connect with this particular bench?

I have learned that it is not always necessary to go with the biggest shot. Sometimes, going with an upcoming Senior - hungry, well-read, and who knows how to chase the bench's opinion till the last minute - is what justice requires.

Because in the Supreme Court, you do not get a second chance to make a first impression.

Ramya Shivam Goel is a Delhi-based advocate.