He's not terribly handsome, he's certainly not the best-dressed man in the world, and while he has a strong record, his score is far from perfect. So what is it about David Boies that makes him one of the most sought-after attorneys in the United States, again at centrestage in the defence of Napster? The answer, friends and colleagues say, begins with a combination of disparate personal attributes rarely associated with high-powered lawyers of national repute. There's the near-photographic memory, which allows him to argue the most complicated of cases without notes. There's the tireless work ethic, instilled in him as the son of two schoolteachers and the oldest of five children in Marengo, Illinois -- a tiny city (approximately 5,000 residents) lacking even its own cinema some 70 miles outside Chicago. And, despite his celebrity and intellect, there's the courtroom manner that's surprisingly humble and straightforward. But perhaps what makes Boies most attractive to his high-profile clients is his willingness to take risks, which often leads him to take on the most difficult cases without hesitation. Nowhere is that quality more appropriate than in the lawsuit against online music company Napster, considered one of the most important technology cases ever -- and one in which victory might be a long shot for even the best of attorneys. "His odds on the whole are not particularly good. It's a high-risk matter for him," said William Kovacic, a professor at George Washington University Law School who has followed Boies' career. "The legal framework he's dealing with and the facts he's having to deal with at the moment present some serious obstacles for him." In other words, it's exactly the kind of challenge that Boies relishes. Last week, three judges from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals dealt the online music-swapping company a huge blow, largely confirming a lower court's ruling that Napster should be prevented from letting people trade copyrighted music on its networks. The plaintiffs in the case, the five major record labels, declared the ruling a major victory. That has done little to weaken the resolve of Boies, dubbed the "Michael Jordan" of law by the National Law Journal, in no small part for his all-star performances in tough situations. While he may not look like a risk-taker -- with his off-the-rack suits, Casio watch, unkempt hair and black tennis shoes often worn in the courtroom -- those who know him can point to his strong character since boyhood, beginning with a battle with dyslexia that kept him from reading until the third grade. (Some attribute Boies' simple speaking style to this early impediment.) At Northwestern University School of Law, before he transferred and graduated from Yale, Boies worked nights as a bookkeeper in a motel to help support his first wife and two young children, according to longtime friend James Fox Miller. Always the gambler, Boies later left the safety of a well-paid partnership at the well-established law firm Cravath, Swaine & Moore to launch his own practice. Whether it was luck or talent, success followed him. In 1997, despite describing himself as a computer illiterate at the time, Boies was retained by the Justice Department in its historic antitrust case against Microsoft, albeit for far less than his usual fees. "You can't be a trial lawyer and not want to take on a trial like that," he once said in a published interview. Not long afterward, Boies, who declined to comment for this article, elevated his public profile even further by leading Al Gore's legal quest for the White House -- a crusade that many attorneys saw as doomed from the beginning. Here again, like all great masters of their craft, Boies was even more drawn to the case because of its daunting prospects. "When you're a great lawyer, you get hired to do these impossible cases," said Steven Hetcher, professor of law at Vanderbilt University Law School. Although most people know Boies for his recent cases, he has practiced law for more than 30 years and has handled other highly charged cases. In the 1970s, he successfully defended IBM against a monopoly charge by the Justice Department. In the 1980s, he defended CBS News against a $120m libel suit filed by general William Westmoreland. But it was the Microsoft case that made David Boies a near-household name. His association with the government, large corporations and important issues may have provided additional incentive for his hiring by Napster, which may well be trying to change its image as a renegade startup linked to massive copyright violation. Boies lends a sense of legitimacy to the company that few other attorneys could, without compromising an aggressive legal strategy. "When Napster had its back to the wall, facing extinction, and they sat around in the room saying who can save us, they thought of him," Kovacic said. Boies demonstrated a gambler's fearlessness with his now-famous deposition of Bill Gates. In the highly publicised videotaped session, Boies grilled one of the richest men in the world, confronting evasive responses and refusing to let up -- a performance that cast him as something of a modern-day Robin Hood. While this earned him praise from many attorneys and the public at large, some were outraged. Gates said publicly that Boies was "out to destroy Microsoft". Others criticised him for making a "spectacle" out of the trial. "In my opinion Boies did not address the substantive matters but focused on the ridicule of Microsoft's chief executive," said Robert Levy, a senior fellow in constitutional studies at the Cato Institute. "I'm also talking about the press conferences after each courtroom hearing, pandering to the press, courtroom histrionics with the deposition to the exclusion of any serious issues." But to those in need of a good lawyer, Boies' calm demeanour in the face of Gates' wrath only looked appealing. If Napster needed to subpoena the most fearsome Hollywood executive, for example, Boies would hardly shrink from the task. "He showed he can handle cases where the stakes are enormous and the pressure is crushing," Kovacic said. Take me to Pt II/ Envy of his peers Take me to the MP3 Special There are many compelling reasons for protecting the rights of artists and their distributors online. Andreas Pfeiffer thinks that it is less clear, however, whether content providers busy with digital rights management have given sufficient consideration to possible side effects. Go to AnchorDesk UK for the news comment. Have your say instantly, and see what others have said. Click on the TalkBack button and go to the Napster Debate. Let the editors know what you think in the Mailroom. And read what others have said.