OK, so you and your client are set to go to trial and you get the word: you’ve drawn the “judge from hell” one of those jurists who takes a dim view of cases like the one you’re about to try.

Now what do you do?

One choice, of course, is to just settle before the judge rips the case to shreds. But that isn’t always an option. And it isn’t always necessary. If an attorney plays his or her cards right, there still are ways to come up a winner.

First off, just because a judge has been assigned to preside at the trial doesn’t mean it’s fixed in stone. Each attorney has the right of one peremptory challenge to a judge for each case, just like an attorney during voir dire can remove a prospective juror with no questions asked. File the peremptory challenge and voila, the judge from hell is gone.

But that may not be the wisest move. For one thing, attorneys can use only one peremptory challenge for each case.

“Before using a peremptory challenge, you want to make sure that it really counts,” said one local attorney, who, like many interviewed for this story, did not want to be identified. “If you know that it’s going to be a long case and that it might get transferred, you don’t want to waste the challenge on removing a judge who might not have actually gotten to rule on your case anyway.”

Then there’s the long-term impact. Peremptory challenges are not secret; when judges find out, they may be predisposed to rule against that particular lawyer on a future case, when he or she has no escape.

“Judges do not like to be peremptoried out,” one source said.

A judge can also be removed “for cause,” by demonstrating that he or she has some conflict or prejudice that could interfere with objectivity. But these kinds of challenges are fairly rare and often do not succeed.

So, if a lawyer gets stuck with the judge from hell, legal experts suggest a number of strategies.

First and foremost, lawyers must hold their ground on the essential points of the case, because a judge’s final ruling can frequently be appealed.

“If you know you are dealing with a judge that’s going to be completely against you, then you have to begin thinking about an appeal,” said John McDermott, a partner with the downtown L.A. law office of Howrey & Simon. “You must make sure during the course of the trial that you have compiled a record to support that appeal. Hopefully, the judge will make some sort of mistake that can be appealed.”

There also may be times when lawyers feel they need to change a judge’s ruling on the spot, before the case goes any further. For example, a judge could decide not to allow a videotape or other piece of evidence the attorney believes is crucial to the outcome of the case. The attorney could appeal that ruling to a higher court and seek an immediate overturning of the judge’s decision (this process is referred to as seeking a writ).

But as with a peremptory, this may not exactly endear the lawyer to the judge, so the experts say this should only be done when it really can make or break a case.

As for more minor points, the experts agree: acquiesce to the judge and “grin and bear it.” That applies even if the judge is simply being ornery or obnoxious.

“On minor points, it’s best just to let it slide,” said Greg Long, a partner with the law firm of Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP.