Bad Legal Habits

It is an accepted norm that a legal mind is one that is technical, analytical and sometimes boastful. Moreover, a lay person may perceive such pedantic behaviour as 'unnecessarily trying to be difficult or stubborn' but to the lawyer this has nuances of thoroughness and precision. It is indeed impressive to perceive and perhaps that is one of the reasons lawyers are the luminary figures that they are. What is undeniably true is that the exercise of both studying and practising law is a simple one, or rather is one that is fundamentally premised on simplicity.

This is evident in legal exercises such as problem solving, simplification of legal rules and principles and concision in both written and oral arguments. All of this is founded on the value of practicality and it is inconceivable that such a term can ever be divorced from any jurist's methods of thought and practise. However, lawyers have many bad habits and for purposes of this post it is prudent to focus on them at student level.

Second to practising law, lawyers also sometimes engage in the art of obfuscation, whether intentionally or unintentionally is neither here nor there. This is when you may think you have explained something in the most simplest way possible, but instead you have filled your explanation with expansive language, rhetoric and ambiguity. To your defence, it may seem at times that ordinary, general and 'everyday terms' add no texture and depth to your writing and/or oral speech. However, in my own view, the exceptional lawyer is one who is fully understood the first time without having to paraphrase, further explain or elaborate.

Many a time you hear law students repeating the words, 'so what I am trying to say is...' or 'so my point is..'. It is repetitive, tedious and flimsy. This may or may not occur in one's pursuit of expansive or impressive language that he or she wishes to use to illustrate a point. I am often guilty of such behaviour and it is definitely something that is prevalent throughout many law schools and the profession at large.

During debates and arguments lawyers, and this may very well be common to all people, have a habit of viciously lashing out to the opposition especially when attempting to rebut a certain point. It is something of a 'tongue lashing tendecy' that aims to completely destroy the opponent, argumentatively of course. If the opponent has made an argument that you don't agree with you respond by saying the following: 'what an outrageous, irrational, foolish and reckless argument' and if the opponent is not argumentatively destroyed after such abrasive and demoralising words being used against him or her then he or she must either be extremely resilient or slowly dying inside. This is the lawyer at worst, but at best he or she might just say that the asserted argument is impractical or untenable.

To many these may seem prima facie as impressive skills and ability, but they are actually the mark of a poor lawyer who perennially sees the need to crack the proverbial whip in order to make his or her point. This speaks insecurity and desperation and it is, to my mind, disappointing when one has to go to such great lengths to make a strong argument.


Frank Talk

Disclaimer: If I have had a conversation with you about any of the issues that are debated on above, this is not by any means a response or retort to what you may or may not have said during such a conversation. It is an expression of my own views which may or may not have been inspired or encouraged by any interaction between you and I.