how does a lawyer use fact centered arguments

apply the law to the facts structure your answer clearly and logically (use the model plan) use appropriate language for a legal argument. Identify relevant legal issues and apply the law to the facts

Full Answer

How do lawyers argue a court case?

How Lawyers Argue a Court Case: “The Phrases of The Complete Lawyer”. The word “argument” engenders visions of debate, the heat and fury of positions attacked and defended strongly, though with words. That may happen of course, in today’s litigation, but generally the arguments which win cases are not replete with drama, sound or fury.

What is the argument from law-making?

So the argument from law-making, when distinct from arguments from replicability and equality, is an argument for the power to overrule, rather than an argument for stare decisis itself. [ 16] In conclusion, both equality and replicability provide arguments in favour of judicial decisions constituting sources of law.

What information should a lawyer Keep in confidence?

A lawyer should keep in confidence information relating to representation of a client except so far as disclosure is required or permitted by the Rules of Professional Conduct or other law. [5] A lawyer's conduct should conform to the requirements of the law, both in professional service to clients and in the lawyer's business and personal affairs.

How do lawyers think about precedents?

On the first point, Common Lawyers ordinarily think of precedents as constituting the law up and until they are overruled. Once overruled the later decision is (normally) given retroactive effect, so the law is changed for the past as well as the future.

What is the importance of facts in a court case?

Facts are the “who, when, what, where, and why” of the case. Describe the history of the dispute, including the events that led to the lawsuit, the legal claims and defenses of each party, and what happened in the trial court. Do not merely copy the facts verbatim; not every detail is important.

Why are facts in legal opinions so important?

If you don't know the facts, you can't really understand the case and can't understand the law. Lawsuits are disputes, and judges only issue opinions when two parties to a dispute disagree on a particular le- gal question. This means that legal opinions focus on resolving the parties' very specific disagreement.

How do lawyers use persuasion?

A great deal of practicing law is persuading someone to believe, act or agree with your client's position, whether it is in a courtroom, a boardroom, a negotiation or at a dinner table. We seek to persuade juries, judges, colleagues, friends, family or the press that we are right and that others are not.

How do you present facts in court?

10 Tips for Presenting Your Case in CourtObserve other trials. ... Do your homework and be prepared. ... Be polite, courteous, and respectful to all parties. ... Tell a good story. ... When presenting your case in court, show the jury; don't tell. ... Admit and dismiss your bad facts.More items...

Are laws based on opinions?

In the U.S. legal system, the judiciary serves as the primary interpreter of the law. Courts issue their interpretations as judicial opinions, which then act as precedent to create lasting legal rules. Sometimes (maybe even most of the time) lawyers will refer to opinions as cases.

How do you write facts in case Digest?

Take a look at the steps on how to ease the burden of finishing the said task.Know the syllabus first.Read the full-text of the case.Divide your digest into three parts.Avoid including irrelevant details.Don't change the text of the case.Limit it to one or two pages.

How do lawyers use rhetoric?

In particular, awareness of rhetoric allows a lawyer to analyze his audience, often a judge, and better communicate inside the courtroom. In the courtroom, lawyers practice the skill of rhetoric to persuade judges.

What methods can a lawyer use to convince the judge jury?

To persuade, lawyers must appeal to their audience. They must know whom they are trying to convince. In a jury trial, lawyers should establish juror profiles during jury selection to identify individuals likely to render a verdict in their client's favor.

Why do lawyers need to be persuasive?

Persuasion is not convincing but is instead learning and negotiating. Furthermore, persuasion requires practice, especially as today's “business of law” contingencies demanded by clients make persuasion more necessary than ever. The science of persuasion is just as compelling.

What is a fact centered argument?

E. I. A doctrinal argument tells the Court that the law, whether embodied in the constitution (state or federal), statute or binding precedent, requires a certain result; and a fact centered argument analyzes the facts in light of governing law and attempts to persuade the Court the result below was proper/improper.

What is a summary of facts in law?

The Summary of Facts. This says what you are charged with, and what the Police witness say happened. Read this carefully, so you can tell your lawyer what you agree with, and what you don't agree with. You can make notes on it.

What is a statement of fact example?

Examples of fact statements Your heart pumps blood through your body. The leaves of growing plants are usually green. Some people keep dogs as pets. 1 liter of water weighs 1 kilogram on Earth.

What is the role of a lawyer in the legal system?

As advisor, a lawyer provides a client with an informed understanding of the client's legal rights and obligations and explains their practical implications. As advocate, a lawyer zealously asserts the client's position under the rules of the adversary system. As negotiator, a lawyer seeks a result advantageous to the client ...

What is the term for a lawyer who has discretion to exercise professional judgment?

Others, generally cast in the term "may," are permissive and define areas under the Rules in which the lawyer has discretion to exercise professional judgment. No disciplinary action should be taken when the lawyer chooses not to act or acts within the bounds of such discretion.

What are the rules for disciplinary assessment of a lawyer?

The Rules presuppose that disciplinary assessment of a lawyer's conduct will be made on the basis of the facts and circumstances as they existed at the time of the conduct in question and in recognition of the fact that a lawyer often has to act upon uncertain or incomplete evidence of the situation.

What is the role of a negotiator in a legal case?

As negotiator, a lawyer seeks a result advantageous to the client but consistent with requirements of honest dealings with others. As an evaluator, a lawyer acts by examining a client's legal affairs and reporting about them to the client or to others.

What should a lawyer maintain?

A lawyer should maintain communication with a client concerning the representation. A lawyer should keep in confidence information relating to representation of a client except so far as disclosure is required or permitted by the Rules of Professional Conduct or other law. [5] A lawyer's conduct should conform to the requirements of the law, ...

What is the purpose of the Rules of Civil Liability?

The Rules are designed to provide guidance to lawyers and to provide a structure for regulating conduct through disciplinary agencies. They are not designed to be a basis for civil liability. Furthermore, the purpose of the Rules can be subverted when they are invoked by opposing parties as procedural weapons.

Why is the legal profession unique?

Although other professions also have been granted powers of self-government, the legal profession is unique in this respect because of the close relationship between the profession and the processes of government and law enforcement.

Who said a judge is like an ill tuned cymbal?

Even though quite a long time back Francis Bacon, then Lord Chancellor, commented about garrulous Judges that a much-talking Judge is like an ill-tuned cymbal, in real life they are the norm.

What is the most important weapon in a lawyer's arsenal?

One of the most important weapons in a lawyer’s arsenal is “argument”. The word “argument” engenders visions of debate, the heat and fury of positions attacked and defended strongly, though with words.

How were these things formulated?

How these things were formulated has many answers, but the most commonly accepted one is that these hark back to the courtly culture of a High Court of the King, where unless the King was pleased to suffer you speak, you had to keep quiet. What you say must please him. A bit like “Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition”.

What are the characteristics of legal reasoning?

1. Precedent and analogy in legal reasoning. Arguments from precedent and analogy are characteristic of legal reasoning. Legal reasoning differs in a number of ways from the sort of reasoning employed by individuals in their everyday lives. It frequently uses arguments that individuals do not employ, or that individuals employ in different ways.

What is the argument for consistency?

The argument from consistency is related to arguments in favour of ‘formal’ justice, i.e., that two cases which are the same (in relevant respects) should be treated in the same way. It would simply be inconsistent to treat them differently. In the case of precedent this argument is said to favour following the earlier case: assuming that one cannot change the earlier decision (because it is too late to appeal, or the party to the case has reasonably relied upon it, etc), the only way to ensure consistency is for later decision-makers to treat the earlier decision as a precedent. The claim of consistency is also sometimes put in terms of ‘equality’: to treat the later case differently to the first would be to fail to treat the parties before the courts equally. This argument is made independently of other concerns such as parties' expectations or community perceptions of the court process or the problem of moral disagreement. Arguments of this kind certainly have weight in some circumstances. If a legal system is morally legitimate and has authority over those subject to it, then it is inconsistent for one person to be treated less or more favourably by the law than another person whose situation is legally indistinguishable. Other things being equal, legal decisions should be consistent across time and/or decision-makers. A later case should only be treated differently to an earlier case when the law itself has been changed (by the legislator or the courts, including cases where the court overrules an earlier decision in reaching a decision on the case before it) So concerns of consistency provide some justification for treating earlier decisions as sources of law, rather than approaching each question anew when it arises again.

What is the difference between precedent and analogy?

Precedent and analogy are two central and complementary forms of legal argument. What makes them characteristic of legal reasoning is the circumstances of decision-making in law. The greatest contrast is with individual reasoning, where neither precedent nor analogy have the same significance.

What is precedent in law?

A precedent is the decision on the law in a case before a court or some similar legal decision-maker such as a tribunal. Paradigmatically in Common Law legal systems a judicial decision is given in a judgment which has five aspects to it: 1 a recitation of the facts of the case, i.e., an account of what happened [ 4]; 2 an identification of the legal issue —the disputed question of law—which the court is being asked to resolve; 3 the reasoning over the appropriate resolution of that issue; 4 the ruling resolving the issue put before the court, e.g. that in these circumstances the defendant has breached a contract, or does not owe the plaintiff a duty of care, or holds the property on trust for a third party, or made a decision contrary to natural justice; and 5 the result or outcome of the case, i.e., which party succeeded in the action; which follows from (d).

Why do we use analogies in law?

Why does the law make use of arguments by analogy, rather than simply deciding novel cases on their own merits? In ordinary moral deliberation, analogies are used to argue that one disputed situation is indistinguishable from another situation where the merits are relatively clear. They leave three main responses open: (a) that the case is indeed indistinguishable since the same rationale applies to both; (b) that the case is distinguishable; or (c) that the case is indistinguishable, but upon reflection the assessment of the original case was mistaken. (Reflection on another case might, of course, lead one to conclude that one's original assessment was mistaken, even though the two cases are distinguishable.) As a result, analogies are useful heuristic devices for deepening and sharpening reflection on the merits. It is also the case that people are often more confident in their judgements about various concrete cases than they are about abstract theories that attempt to account for their judgements, and so regard this is a more profitable way to approach a question (see Sunstein 1993, 775–7).

What is the difference between a statute and a precedent?

The real difference between precedent and statute lies in the fact that in the case of statutes legal systems have elaborate conventions of interpretation to assist in the process of deriving the law from a legislative text, whereas in the case of precedents they do not.

What is reasons based reasoning?

The reasons-based approach to analogical reasoning focuses on the justifications for the analogical case (for two very different accounts see Raz 1979, 201–6 and Brewer 1996). It considers the extent to which the rationale for the decision in the earlier case is applicable to the case at hand. Take the case of the impersonation of a boyfriend in the law of rape. Whether this situation is analogous to the impersonation of a husband depends on the reasons for the latter vitiating consent. There need be no single principle that underlies the rationale: it may rest on a number of factors that reinforce the conclusion.

What does it mean to be a good attorney?

A good attorney recognizes that effectively representing a client begins and ends with zealously guarding her reputation and going above and beyond the baseline of ethical standards imposed by our profession.

Do Pitbull attorneys need to channel their emotions?

Indeed, prospective clients will often express a desire for a “pitbull attorney” who will inflict pain and misery on their adversaries. But that is not what a client needs, and a lawyer has an obligation to channel the client’s emotions in a constructive manner.