How to think like a lawyer in 3 easy steps!

Summary

In this video, lawyer Andy Siegel explains how law school trains lawyers to think differently. Using humor and examples, he outlines three key skills lawyers develop: challenging conclusions drawn from facts, disputing what constitutes a fact, and questioning definitions and interpretations of laws. Through various examples, such as arguing whether red bloodshot eyes indicate drunkenness or whether a wheelchair counts as a vehicle, Siegel shows how lawyers scrutinize facts and laws from all angles. His engaging approach offers insight into the often complex, analytical nature of legal thinking.

Takeaways

• 😀 Lawyers think differently from regular people due to their training in law school.
• 😀 The primary skills lawyers learn are challenging conclusions from facts, disputing facts, and questioning legal definitions.
• 😀 Lawyers don’t just accept facts at face value; they analyze and interpret them from multiple angles.
• 😀 For example, in a DUI case, a lawyer might argue that red bloodshot eyes could be caused by factors other than alcohol, such as allergies or lack of sleep.
• 😀 Lawyers sometimes dispute whether something is even a fact at all, like in the case of whether a person’s eyes were red or not.
• 😀 Legal disputes often revolve around the interpretation of facts, as seen in the case of the wheelchair being considered a 'vehicle' in a park.
• 😀 Challenging legal definitions is a common practice, as demonstrated by the argument over whether a wheelchair counts as a 'vehicle' under the law.
• 😀 Lawyers are trained to think critically about words and definitions in the law to interpret and argue for their clients' best interests.
• 😀 An example of challenging definitions is the argument over whether a horse should be considered a 'vehicle' in drunk driving laws.
• 😀 Legal cases can involve surprising disputes, like the one where a horse was considered a vehicle under certain laws, showing how lawyers scrutinize every angle.
• 😀 The humor in the script helps illustrate how lawyers approach problems in ways that may seem unconventional but are deeply rooted in their legal training.

Q & A

What are the three primary things lawyers are trained to do in law school?

Lawyers are trained to: 1) Challenge conclusions drawn from facts, 2) Dispute whether something is even a fact, and 3) Challenge the definitions and interpretations of laws.

How does a lawyer challenge conclusions drawn from facts?

Lawyers challenge conclusions drawn from facts by questioning the implications or interpretations of those facts, rather than accepting them at face value. For example, if someone has red, bloodshot eyes, the defense lawyer may argue that this could be caused by other factors, not necessarily intoxication.

Can you give an example of how lawyers dispute whether something is a fact?

In the example with the red bloodshot eyes, the defense lawyer disputes the officer's claim by providing evidence (like testimony from a friend or a booking photo) that contradicts the fact that the eyes were bloodshot.

Why do lawyers challenge the definitions of laws?

Lawyers challenge the definitions of laws in order to argue that certain legal terms should be interpreted differently, based on the specific circumstances of a case. For instance, in a case about vehicles in a park, the defense might argue that a wheelchair is not a 'vehicle' as the law intended.

What is the significance of the wheelchair case in the context of legal reasoning?

The wheelchair case highlights how lawyers may challenge the definition of a legal term. The prosecution argues that a wheelchair is a 'vehicle' under the law, while the defense contends that the law was meant for motor vehicles, not human-powered devices like wheelchairs.

What is the importance of the horse DUI example in understanding legal reasoning?

The horse DUI example illustrates how lawyers can argue that something typically understood as an object (like a horse) might fit a legal definition (like 'vehicle') depending on how the law is interpreted. It shows that legal definitions are not always straightforward and can be subject to argument.

Why do lawyers dispute facts, even when they seem obvious, like the presence of red eyes?

Lawyers dispute facts to ensure that all aspects of the case are thoroughly examined. By questioning even seemingly simple facts, they ensure that all possible explanations are considered, and they may uncover alternative interpretations that could benefit their client.

How does challenging legal definitions affect the outcome of a case?

Challenging legal definitions can have a significant impact on a case's outcome, as it can alter how laws are applied. If a lawyer successfully argues that a term should be interpreted differently, it can change the legal consequences for the parties involved, as seen in the wheelchair or horse DUI examples.

What role does interpretation play in legal reasoning?

Interpretation plays a central role in legal reasoning because lawyers often argue about the meaning and scope of laws, facts, and definitions. They aim to interpret the law in a way that benefits their client, which often involves challenging the conventional understanding of terms or facts.

What can we learn about the flexibility of law from the examples in the video?

The examples in the video demonstrate the flexibility of law, showing that legal outcomes are not always determined by straightforward facts or definitions. Lawyers constantly reframe issues, question facts, and challenge interpretations to achieve favorable results for their clients.