I am simply disagreeing with your analysis of Hamilton. You treat him as if he were the greatest thing to ever grace a courtroom in America and treat any interpretation of him that suggests he was anything less than the legal deity you make him out to be as if it were a blasphemy upon his reputation.
I am simply reigning in your sillyness with a dose of reality - a reality that concedes Hamilton was a good and skilled lawyer yet does not accept his assignment into the realm of a platonic form. For most people this would be a perfectly agreeable thing. It is perfectly okay and admirable to be good and recognized yet to also fall short of the elusive "greatest ever" status. As far as all star American lawyers go, he was a Carlton Fiske or a Joe Morgan or maybe even a Yogi Berra. But he was no Babe Ruth.
He hit 'em out of the park more often than the Babe. Lack of knowledge of his legal activities should prevent your speaking of them but obviously doesn't. Certainly he went further in the legal field than any "errand boy."
Many would consider the claim that he was America's greatest lawyer to be a condemnation.
I cannot imagine why you feel it necessary to dispute what his contemporaries believed as well as almost all the scholars who have studied his life (even those who do not like him.) All I am doing is reflecting what they say.