Being a law student.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
♥ Tuesday, April 14, 2009
I
t is not about being a lawyer- that is all acting, in the hope of some cognitive dissonance...and all that makes us is lawyer-ish. Not a lawyer. Get an LLB and get called to the Bar. Then call yourself one.
What law students really do is to instead think like one. Now that is where the fun begins.
First thing every student has to grasp is cases. Cases are nothing but stories that are being questioned in more detail. Did A intend to give B his property when A said "all this is yours"? Did C kill B in cold blooded fashion or was it an accident? Is it right to infer that Tom had the knowledge that Jack was cheating even though he did not actually know, but was only close enough to have known?
Second thing you have to know is that there are no unarguable truths. Even the proposition that "there is no unarguable truths" is arguable. Somewhat fallacious. But they are all points of view. And what is the essential truth arises from who is most dominant, asserts it in a most charismatic manner, that triumphs. Nothing cannot be critiqued. All standards are relative.
Which brings us to our third. Opinions do not matter as much as whose opinion. My personal moral stand however i argue it, is not and will never be as persuasive as a professor's. But his position is only as powerful as the attorney or lawyer willing to argue such a stand. And the lawyer's persuasion is categorized as Senior Counsel, Attorney General, or just one who passed the bar. Against those various categories, are arguments weighed. So on and so forth.
But what i will challenge above (again a reflection of how everything can be critiqued), is that analysis brings you a long way. The right issues bring out (the right grades) and advances positions. Asking "did A kill B" may not be as important as asking "whether it is for A to prove that he did or did not kill B". And the right chess moves, can get a pawn to secure a checkmate.
So that is the art of analysis engraved in a law student. Imperfectly for many..but it is there.
Speaking. Now this is a huge component. A quiet lawyer could very well find itself on the list of oxymorons together with "army intelligence" and "secular christian". It is not about perfect use of English. IT is about the precise use of English. Add in your "la-s" and "lors" that is ok provided you make perfect sense. And sense is the bulwark of all forms of communication. So with that comes the listening. Not just about what is said, but what is not. If the only paragraph that provided incriminating testimony was that " i saw him at the back alley with a knife", what is not said is in the huge realm of possibilities and with that your entry point to make a case.
It is about asking. Just why, why and why. Why is there the law against a director being in a position of conflict and interest, because of the duty of loyalty imposed on him. Why is the duty of loyalty imposed on him, because he stands in a postion where trust is being reposed in him. Many times you can bring it back to some notion of justice and fairness. At times the answer is circular. Why is the law binding on courts? because it is the law? Sometimes there are just assertions. Which you would ask why anyway.
Being a law student is absorbing a whole history, and trying to use that history for a current purpose- as a weapon, as a reformer, a revolutionary or to be simply a more eloquent and charming person.
