the time. It's so easy to start from the result you want, and then find what appear to be perfectly reasonable interpretations of a statute or case, which end up supporting your case. But then when the judge rules against you, your client complains about how you said you were going to win. Or your opponent comes up with an argument you didn't anticipate, because your analysis was too narrow.

On behalf of your client, you'll look interpret the statute from the view most favorable to your client - sort of a bottom-up analysis. While the court is (supposed to be) looking it at from the top down - reading the statute, and giving it the most objectively reasonable interpretation - or the interpretation the legislature most likely intended.

Great illustration of that principle going on in this thread.