"Do Lawyers Think, and If So, How?" with Professor Frederick Schauer

Summary

The speaker humorously dissects the typical Dean's opening speech at law school, highlighting the emphasis on legal reasoning over learning legal rules or practical skills. They challenge the notion that legal thinking is unique, engaging with skepticism about its distinctiveness. The talk explores the importance of precedent, rules, and authority in legal reasoning, suggesting that a key aspect of thinking like a lawyer is the ability to tolerate wrong answers for the sake of systemic or long-term values, such as stability and consistency.

Takeaways

• 📚 Dean's opening speeches at law schools tend to follow a similar pattern, highlighting the history of law and the institution, and setting expectations for students.
• 🚫 Law school is not solely about learning legal rules or acquiring practical skills like drafting documents or standing in a courtroom.
• 🤔 The dean emphasizes that law school is about developing legal reasoning and thinking like a lawyer, a concept that is often left vague and assumed to be absorbed by students.
• 🧐 Skeptics argue that legal reasoning may not be as distinct from general reasoning as law schools claim, suggesting that being a good thinker transcends the legal profession.
• 👨‍⚖️ Legal realists believe that judges and lawyers' decisions are influenced more by their humanity than by legal training or knowledge, challenging the uniqueness of legal thinking.
• 📖 The script suggests that legal reasoning might have unique elements when compared to other forms of reasoning, even if it's not entirely unique.
• 📘 Reasoning from precedent is a significant aspect of legal reasoning, where judges are sometimes obligated to follow decisions they disagree with.
• 🚦 Rules and authority play a crucial role in law, often guiding decisions even when they lead to outcomes that seem incorrect in specific cases.
• 🏛️ The legal system's tolerance for 'wrong' answers in individual cases for the sake of systemic or long-term values is a hallmark of legal reasoning.
• 💡 The Socratic method in law teaching aims to teach students that the best legal outcome isn't always the best outcome in every case, fostering a broader understanding of legal principles.

Q & A

What is the general theme of the opening speech at the University of Virginia Law School?

The general theme of the opening speech at the University of Virginia Law School, as described in the script, involves the dean discussing the glorious history of law and lawyers, the history of the law school, and emphasizing that law school is not about learning legal rules or practical skills but rather about legal reasoning and thinking like a lawyer.

Why does the dean mention that law school is not about learning legal rules?

The dean mentions that law school is not about learning legal rules to preemptively address the concerns of first-year law students who may expect to learn a lot of legal rules but later realize they haven't learned any. This is to set the expectation that law school focuses on legal reasoning rather than memorization of rules.

What is the role of precedent in legal reasoning according to the script?

Precedent plays a significant role in legal reasoning as it often dictates outcomes even when a judge may personally disagree with the decision. It represents a system that can constrain judges to follow decisions that align with previous rulings, even when they would have made a different decision on their own.

How does the script describe the relationship between legal reasoning and human nature?

The script suggests that legal reasoning is not entirely unique to lawyers but is influenced by human nature. It references legal realists who argue that judges and lawyers, being human, are influenced more by their human nature than by any specific legal training or practice.

What is the significance of the cannibalism law example in the script?

The example of the cannibalism law in Virginia is used to illustrate the point that laws can exist and be known without necessarily influencing individual behavior. It serves to highlight the difference between what the law dictates and what people choose to do, even when a law is not enforced or is repealed.

Why does the script mention the idea of a 'wrong answer' in the context of legal reasoning?

The script mentions the 'wrong answer' to emphasize that legal reasoning often involves accepting outcomes that may not be the most just or fair in an individual case but are necessary to uphold systemic values such as consistency, stability, and the rule of law.

What does the script suggest about the role of authority in law?

The script suggests that authority plays a crucial role in law, where the fact that something is said by a legislator, a judge, or a legal scholar like Wigmore, Corbin, or Keaton carries significant weight and can influence legal decisions, even if the decision-maker personally disagrees.

How does the script relate the concept of rules to the practice of law?

The script relates the concept of rules to the practice of law by explaining that rules are most impactful when they require action contrary to what one would have done without the rule. It shows that rules can dictate outcomes even when they lead to what may be considered the 'wrong' answer in a specific case.

What is the Socratic dialogue method described in the script, and how does it relate to legal education?

The Socratic dialogue method described in the script involves presenting hypothetical cases and challenging students to defend their initial intuitive responses with legal rules or principles. This method is used in legal education to teach students to think critically about the broader implications of legal rules and to understand the complexities of legal reasoning.

How does the script connect the idea of tolerating a 'bad' outcome to the concept of thinking like a lawyer?

The script connects tolerating a 'bad' outcome to thinking like a lawyer by suggesting that legal reasoning often requires lawyers to accept less-than-ideal outcomes in individual cases for the sake of upholding legal principles, systemic values, or the long-term stability of the legal system.