what do you call the argument a lawyer makes

Full Answer

What makes a good argumentative lawyer?

They hold their ground and remind their opponent of the real issue. A lawyer’s ability to win an argument can be summed up by a few key skills: organising ideas and delivering them effectively.

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.

Can you use one person in a legal argument?

In legal argument, avoid the third person “one,” as in “one could argue” or “one might add.” Too many “ones” arguing can lead to ball bouncing—a distracting batting back and forth of ideas.

What should you not say in a legal argument?

In legal argument, avoid the mysterious “one.” In legal argument, avoid the third person “one,” as in “one could argue” or “one might add.” Too many “ones” arguing can lead to ball bouncing—a distracting batting back and forth of ideas.

What is the legal term of argument?

An argument is both the process of giving reasons for believing something is true as well as the term used to describe the reason(s) given. An argument is also a disagreement between two or more persons, in which opposing parties openly voice their opinions and dispute their respective opponents' claims and viewpoints.

What do we call the written arguments made by the attorneys in a case?

pleadings - Written statements of the parties in a civil case of their positions. In federal courts, the principal pleadings are the complaint and the answer.

What are arguments against a case called?

Because the plaintiff or government has the burden of proof, the lawyer for that side is then entitled to make a concluding argument, sometimes called a rebuttal .

What is the word for arguing in court?

debate, discuss, dispute, hash (over), moot.

What is an example of legal jargon?

Examples include mediation, arbitration, and conciliation. Annulment - a case brought seeking to declare marriage void. This is a legal action and not the type sought for religious reasons.

How do lawyers argue?

Lawyers stick with the topic. Subjective opinions are not objective facts. No matter what strategies the opposing side uses to distract you from the main issue, or how tempting it is to draw in other connections, a good lawyer always brings the argument back to the original point.

What is a written argument prepared by lawyers arguing a case in court called quizlet?

this court allows both sides to submit written arguments on the case, called briefs. each side then appears for oral argument, usually before a panel of three judges. this is the highest court in the state, and it accepts some appeals from the court of appeals.

What is an oral argument in law?

Oral argument is your chance to further explain to the appellate court in person the arguments that you made in your brief. You can clarify the points you made in your brief, tell the appellate court what you think is most important about your arguments, and answer questions from the appellate court judges.

What does Murphy's law say about oral arguments?

Murphy’s Law dictates that “if something can go wrong, it will.” Sometimes, it feels like the same could be said for oral argument.

How to prepare for oral argument?

Proper preparation is key to both your confidence and success. Make sure you review the judge’s procedures to see if you are expected to send any documents in advance of the hearing. Familiarize yourself with the history of the case, especially if it’s one you have not done a lot of work on. Look up and save the directions to the courthouse, including information on parking and access. Print off at least four copies of every document and case you intend to rely on: one for yourself, one for opposing counsel, one for the court and one just in case. Taking small steps to prepare yourself for argument now can have big payoffs later.

Is it bad to be nervous in an oral argument?

Feeling nervous or overwhelmed in preparing for an oral argument does not mean you are a bad lawyer; it only means you are human. Keeping these simple things in mind beforehand can strengthen your argument, boost your confidence and help prevent anxiety later.

Is there a one size fits all oral argument?

When it comes to oral argument, there is no “one size fits all” technique. You have to find what you are comfortable with and what works best for you. Don’t be afraid to ask around and try new methods if what you are doing does not feel “right.” Once you’ve found what “clicks” for you, stick with it, and do not be daunted by the fact that other attorneys are doing it differently.

Can pre argument jitters affect an attorney?

No matter how much you prepare or how many times you have previously appeared in court, pre-argument jitters can affect any attorney, but especially young attorneys new to the practice of law. In my prior role as a moot court coach and in my own commercial litigation and appellate practices, I have learned some best practices, tips and things to keep in mind to help alleviate—if not obviate—the anxiety that comes with presenting an oral argument before a trial or appellate court.

What are the skills of a lawyer?

A lawyer’s ability to win an argument can be summed up by a few key skills: organising ideas and delivering them effectively.

Why is it so difficult to present a convincing argument?

Emotion makes it difficult for us to present a convincing argument. Negative displays of body language such as yelling, crying, sighing, eye rolling or name-calling is a waste of the mental energy required to win your argument . It fortifies your opponent’s psychological and emotional defences meaning that from this point, no matter how persuasive you are, you have already lost the battle.

How do lawyers stay calm?

Lawyers stay calm and stick with the facts. When it comes to arguments or negotiations, emotion is weakness. Even if lawyers are provoked, or are emotionally connected with a particular subject, they do not allow their opponent to use it to their advantage.

Why do people use ammunition in argument?

It gives them the ammunition they need to focus their own strategy, distract you from your core objective and , ultimately, win the argument.

What is the risk of debate?

The main risk here is that your debate will quickly and irretrievably deviate from the subject at hand to one that does not progress the current issue at all. This is where it is easy to become lost in a sea of unrelated issues.

How does the debate move away from the central issue?

The debate slowly moves away from the central issue to similar sub-issues meaning that the original topic is never dealt with.

Can emotion win an argument?

Emotion will never win an argument. When we feel strongly about a subject, it is likely that our views are informed by past personal experiences. A strong emotional response to someone challenging these views leaves us not only vulnerable to feelings of personal attack, but also not thinking clearly.

How to break adverse case law into a paragraph?

If you break adverse case law into a separate section or paragraph, you may find yourself arguing the other side’s case , no matter how carefully you distinguish that law. Instead, weave opposing authority into your argument and present it offensively by using transitional words such as however and although.

What is the strength of legal research?

The strength of any piece of legal writing turns on the depth and breadth of the research that supports the writing. But legal research is about much more than simply finding cases or presenting long lists of authority.

How to argue a case against a corporate veil?

For example, if you are asking the court to pierce the corporate veil, review all cases in which the court did pierce the veil to identify any facts that will support a pierce. Then give the court concrete reasons to accept your argument by focusing on facts. For example, say “A court may pierce the corporate veil whenever a company’s capitalization falls below a certain ratio.” Avoid generic statements of law, such as “A court will pierce the corporate veil to prevent fraud.”

What case did Thurgood Marshall use factual distinctions in?

For example, Thurgood Marshall and his colleagues relied on factual distinctions to make history in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954). There, Marshall and his colleagues had little precedent going their way. If they organized their research into yes and no cases (and perhaps they did), their no pile would have been huge and their yes pile would have been empty. Since they had little law on their side, they did what brilliant advocates do. They argued the facts.

What are the two groups of key cases?

Your key cases will generally fall into two categories: those in which the court ruled for the analogous party and those in which the court ruled against. So arrange your cases into two groups: cases which help and cases which hurt or yes and no. Within your yes and no groups, arrange your cases in order of importance. Think about your yes cases (and later, your no cases) as a whole. What case have you put first? Why? Is it the most analogous case? The leading case? The most recent case?

Should you begin every sentence in a paragraph with a signal word?

But be careful not to begin every sentence within a paragraph with a signal word or your sentences will sound formulaic. Vary the form of your sentences occasionally. For example, instead of saying “Similarly, in Smith v. Jones, the court held that….” say “In Smith v. Jones, the court also held that …. ”

If you understand your opponent through meticulous preparation, it is possible to anticipate their arguments and apply tactical pressure to win

This is one of the reasons that lawyers are highly skilled at presenting an effective argument. They consider issues from multiple angles and forecast their opponent’s next move.

Lawyers stay in control by sticking to the facts

This ability to remain calm, focused, objective and in control of an escalating situation is a unique type of emotional intelligence that comes from years of legal training. It’s also one of the reasons why lawyers are able to navigate high-conflict personal or professional situations with relative ease.

Which rule relates to communication with the client?

Rule 1.4 , however, which relates to communication with the client, includes a comment that says:

Is trial advocacy a science?

Trial advocacy is nowhere near a science. It’s hard to even call it an art given the absence of any focused study, education, and development beyond a program here or there. The practice of rhetoric goes back as far as recorded human history, and several thousand years later even lawyers practicing in the same field, with the same goals, looking at the same facts, rarely agree on how to approach a case.

Do lawyers have to believe in a client's case?

Let’s start with an important basic premise: a lawyer is not required to believe in the alleged facts that support their client’s position. For example, a criminal-defense lawyer does not need to believe in their client’s total innocence to present a zealous defense on all charges. Such a requirement would frustrate our adversarial system by forcing lawyers into the position of serving as judges and factfinders when they’re supposed to be serving as advocates. Rules 3.3 (“Candor Toward the Tribunal”) and 4.1 (“Truthfulness in Statements to Others”) only prohibit a knowingly false statement by a lawyer, and an attorney only “knows” a client’s story or evidence to be untrue if there is a “firm factual basis” for that knowledge. See People v. Calhoun, 351 Ill.App.3d 1072, 1056-86, 815 N.E.2d 492, 502-03 (Ill. App. 4th Dist. 2004) (surveying jurisdictions and finding most follow “firm factual basis” standard).

Is a lawyer bound to press for every advantage that might be realized for a client?

As noted above, the comments to the Model Rules say “ [a] lawyer is not bound, however, to press for every advantage that might be realized for a client,” and there’s no requirement for the utmost zeal in representation, so we know that there’s no absolute duty to make a particular argument just because it might confer some advantage on the client.

Do you need a judgment call to do a legal judgment?

Truth is, for all the fear that the law will be “commoditized” like fast food, most legal work still involves a skilled professional making a judgment call. If it was something that didn’t require a judgment call, you wouldn’t need or ask a lawyer to do it.

Does the ABA model require zealous representation?

No [ABA Model] rule requires zealous representation. Rather, the emphasis is on competent and diligent representation. The term “zeal” appears in the preamble, both times in reference to litigation, and in the comment to Model Rule 1.3. The rule itself requires that a lawyer act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client. Comment (1) explains that “ (a) lawyer must also act with commitment and dedication to the interest of the client and with zeal in advocacy upon the client’s behalf.” That suggestion is at the same time diluted by the next sentence: “A lawyer is not bound, however, to press for every advantage that might be realized for a client.”

What is the appellant in a lawsuit?

To make such a request is "to appeal" or "to take an appeal.". Both the plaintiff and the defendant can appeal, and the party doing so is called the appellant. Appeals can be made for a variety of reasons including improper procedure and asking the court to change its interpretation of the law.

Who decides where to bring a lawsuit?

The plaintiff initially decides where to bring the suit, but in some cases, the defendant can seek to change the court. (2) The geographic area over which the court has authority to decide cases. A federal court in one state, for example, can usually only decide a case that arose from actions in that state.

What is bail in criminal law?

bail - Security given for the release of a criminal defendant or witness from legal custody (usually in the form of money) to secure his/her appearance on the day and time appointed.

What is the power of an appellate court?

appellate - About appeals; an appellate court has the power to review the judgment of another lower court or tribunal. arraignment - A proceeding in which an individual who is accused of committing a crime is brought into court, told of the charges, and asked to plead guilty or not guilty.

What is the charge to the jury?

charge to the jury - The judge's instructions to the jury concerning the law that applies to the facts of the case on trial. chief judge - The judge who has primary responsibility for the administration of a court. The chief judge also decides cases, and the choice of chief judges is determined by seniority.

What is capital offense?

capital offense - A crime punishable by death. In the federal system, it applies to crimes such as first degree murder, genocide, and treason. case law - The use of court decisions to determine how other law (such as statutes) should apply in a given situation.

How many judges are in a court of appeals?

Refers to court sessions with the entire membership of a court participating, rather than the usual quorum. U.S. courts of appeals usually sit in panels of three judges, but may expand to a larger number in certain cases they deem important enough to be decided by the entire court.