Quote:
ORIGINAL: CalHunter
Breathe deeply grasshopper and allow your aggressions to flow out of you in a peaceful manner. You will live longer and prosper. Law school teaches an antagonistic or adversarial approach that is supposed to bring about the most information to a jury, etc. This approach works great for TV and the movies but it is actually a double edged sword when it comes to convincing people to change their minds and it downright sucks for trying to broker a deal. Some of the smartest civil lawyers in the US will tell you a deal is most likely when everybody feels like they are getting something out of the deal. Similar to your flies with honey or vinegar analogy.
|
I had intended to let you guys have the last word, but your post intrigued me. I will attempt to answer your propositions seriatim.
1- "Grasshopper?" An obvious attempt to be demeaning. (I've seen the movie.) Dale Carnegie would likely suggest to you that beginning your statement by demeaning the other person is probably not the best way to win your point.
2- Sorry Mr. Miyagi, no aggression. I stated a fact, that I find the bickering and negativity on this forum to be boring. Boredom does not result in anger or aggression.
3- Discussing my statements with respect to the fact that I have been trained in the law is an
argumentum ad hominem.Whether or not my statements hold water has nothing to do with me personally.
4- Having just graduated from law school, I think I'm qualified to discuss what goes on in law school. One does not learn to be antagonistic or adversarial in law school. One learns to be analytical. Some law students are antagonistic and adversarial and some are kind of shy and withdrawn. It's a matter of personality and that is pretty much established by the time you get to law school. Being antagonistic and adversarial is counter-productive. Almost all cases are settled without going to trial and even criminal cases are usually pleaded out without an actualtrial.
Law school is somewhat different from other graduate programs. In most graduate programs you feed back the material you've learned on exams and apply it in research projects and experiments. (I have a masters in psychology and was a PH.D candidate until I decided it wasn't for me.) In law school you have to do both on the exams. It's a difficult process and I had a tough time adjusting to the difference. What they teach you in law school, besides the law, is how to find the legal issue, determine the relevant law and apply it to the issue, arriving after analysis, at a conclusion. They don't teach you to be antagonistic and adversarial.
My internship supervisor represents children who come before the court because of parental abuse or neglect. One of our cases involved sexual abuse by a father. Although we were representing the girl, I read a treatise on "Representing the Sex Offender." The author's first rule was "Don't make the victim cry." (His exact words.) He then went on to explain why making the victim cry was a really bad idea. With some exceptions, a jury will generally react negatively to an antagonistic and adversarial lawyer.
But you are correct Mr. Miyagi, almost all cases are settled and a skillful attorney will realize that he/she can best represent his/her client if he/she does not antagonize the other side, either the parties or their lawyer(s).
5- A little out of order but I'll close by noting that I spent a LOT of time in court during my internship. What you see on TV and in the movies does not accurately represent what happens in a real courtroom. Although the cases they cite on Law and Order are real cases. A word of caution though. They usually reflect New York law which may be substantially different from the law in the viewer's state.
Be sure to let me know if you have any questions.
Anyway, you guys can have the last word.
,My wife just got out of hospital and is looking better. Thats why I am so positive.
