Learning to Think Like a Lawyer
Dec 02, 2021 · Thinking like a lawyer requires thinking things through a variety of perspectives and providing actionable insights and advice. Notes on Legal Tech 9,429 followers
Aug 27, 2008 · Thinking like a lawyer demands thinking within the confines of inductive and deductive forms of reasoning. As law students , we entered a world of rigorous dialogue in which abstractions are formulated and then described—usually leading to the discovery of a general principle or rule, which is then distinguished from another general rule.
“Thinking like a lawyer” may incorporate the sharpened fundamentals we learned in law school, but thinking like a good lawyer transcends that. The art of practicing law requires us to go beyond blindly executing techniques, focusing solely on what is immediately in front of us.
Thinking like a Lawyer — Applying the Law to Facts. Much of what you are asked to do in class is present an analysis of the law — its application to new factual hypotheticals. Practice this skill, particularly in writing, as often as possible. It is critical to your success. IDENTIFYING ISSUES. STEP ONE: Read the facts. This is the DESCRIPTIVE phase of your analysis.
Thinking like a lawyer also means not taking anything for granted. Understanding why something happened, or why a certain law was enacted, enables you to apply the same rationale to other fact patterns and reach a logical conclusion. ...
1. Approach a problem from all angles. To see all the possible issues in a set of facts, lawyers look at the situation from different perspectives. Putting yourself in others’ shoes allows you to understand other points of view.
Deduce particular conclusions from general rules. Deductive reasoning is one of the hallmarks of thinking like a lawyer. In law, this pattern of logic is used when applying a rule of law to a particular fact pattern.
Thinking like a lawyer also requires using judgment. Just because a logical argument can be made doesn’t mean that argument is good. Judgment is necessary to determine whether a given line of reasoning or conclusion is in anyone’s best interests or advances society as a whole, or if it’s destructive and dangerous.
Jennifer Mueller is an in-house legal expert at wikiHow. Jennifer reviews, fact-checks, and evaluates wikiHow's legal content to ensure thoroughness and accuracy. She received her JD from Indiana University Maurer School of Law in 2006.
Syllogisms consist of three parts: a general statement, a particular statement, and a conclusion about the particular based on the general. The general statement typically is broad and nearly universally applicable. For example, you might say “All dirty floors show negligence.”.
When asked why I became a lawyer, I usually say that it seemed like a smart thing to do. Unlike some of my law school classmates, I had no illusions of becoming either a great advocate or a legal scholar. All I wanted was a comfortable income and a respectable station in life. For me, law was a safe career choice, not a passion.
Thinking like a lawyer demands thinking within the confines of inductive and deductive forms of reasoning. As law students, we entered a world of rigorous dialogue in which abstractions are formulated and then described—usually leading to the discovery of a general principle or rule, which is then distinguished from another general rule.
I had just enough left-brain skills to get me through law school and the bar. The sheer mental gymnastics necessary are a tribute to the plasticity of the human mind. Yet it is worth pondering both what we gained from the process and what we may have lost. The values we learned in law school began to spill over into our personal lives.
STEP ONE: Read the facts. This is the DESCRIPTIVE phase of your analysis. Be sure you know your client’s case (the facts of the problem). Read closely and carefully. Draw inferences from the facts (most matters of motivation, causation, or alternative choices are inferential). Think about alternative inferences that can be drawn. Be aware that vague, conflicting and incomplete facts are normal in the real world. Identify your client’s goals. Be sure you have asked the six basic questions about the facts presented: What? Where? When? How? Why? Who?
Draw inferences from the facts (most matters of motivation, causation, or alternative choices are inferential). Think about alternative inferences that can be drawn. Be aware that vague, conflicting and incomplete facts are normal in the real world. Identify your client’s goals.
Oftentimes, an attorney will be given a case that does not align with their personal beliefs and values. Practicing tolerance can help the attorney put aside their personal values for the good of the client, their work and / or career, and even the law itself.
Pragmatism is critical for thinking like a lawyer. Compromises are at the core of many practicing lawyers’ professional careers; coming to a settlement, reducing sentences - all of these are the result of lessons learned that trains the attorney to look at things from the big picture perspective.
In order to make effective arguments, an attorney at law has to look at all possible angles. Their success in the courtroom hinges on building a foundation of logic in support of their argument; if they can make a good case, they can sway even the most stubborn jury.
Lawyers have a reputation for being laser-focused, determined individuals. This makes sense if you look at it from a certain perspective. They are often career-minded; their goal is to deliver the desired results for their clients by defeating the logic and arguments of their attorney opponents.