 The case of the superstitious lawyer is very complicated and Lehrer’s argument has frequently been criticized. Alvin Goldman, for example, has claimed that “…I find this example unconvincing. To the extent that I clearly imagine that the lawyer fixes his belief solely as a result of the cards, it seems intuitively wrong to say that he knows—or has a justified belief—that his client is innocent.” (Goldman 1979, p. 22, n.  8)[5]  Goldman does not elaborate on this objection, but the concern is that the lawyer has not taken his good reason into proper account when forming his belief that his client is innocent. One way of responding to this concern is presented below in the discussion of the causal-doxastic theory of the basing relation.