The law society should take care that the public especially those without the affinity
of thinking like a lawyer may find this all very shady indeed.
We used to talk about that in terms
of thinking like a lawyer or in terms of the analytical skills that you needed to be able to advise clients.
The business of law is changing so when it comes to the future of law
stop thinking like a lawyer, and start thinking like a business that commoditizes its product for its target consumer.
That old lawyer I met within the brewery was right: Understanding how to
think like lawyers made us less able to the type of emotive thinking essential to make creative choices, manage and encourage people, and respond rapidly to alter.
I plan to blog my way through this experience as a way of reflecting upon and retaining what I'm learning — about legal research, writing and drafting, oral and written advocacy and
what thinking like a lawyer means in an increasingly dynamic legal profession.
The old lawyer I met in the brewery was right: Learning to
think like lawyers made us less capable of the kind of emotive thinking necessary to make creative choices, manage and inspire people, and respond quickly to change.
I do not mean to knock the professionalism, skills, or dedication of non-lawyers in the e-discovery world, but, for the most part it's true that they simply do
n't think like lawyers.
Thinking like a lawyer can be challenging for scientists, at least at first, says Hambleton.
«People don't think like scientists;
they think like lawyers.
I eventually learned to
think like a lawyer, although I never did develop a true appreciation for legal theory.
This means that you have to
think like a lawyer.
Yes, law school does a good job at training you to «
think like a lawyer» and spot issues, do legal research, draft legal documents, and put together a legal argument.
Students spend a great deal of time learning to research the law and to «
think like lawyers», and limited time learning about how to operate a law practice.
«We're working on having lawyers teach the computer to
think like a lawyer.
Law school can train you to
think like a lawyer, write like a lawyer, and talk like a lawyer.
We've had a few full group lectures in Legal Methods, where first year students are being immersed in practical topics ranging from basic legal research to how to
think like a lawyer to exam - writing tips.
That process started on the very first day of school once the dean told our scared first - year class that before we're able to become lawyers we'd to learn to
think like lawyers.
Law schools purport to teach students to «
think like lawyers.»
Now, imagine a world where, instead of spending countless hours staring at the Bluebook, first - year law students can spend most of their time trying to «
think like a lawyer» and write like one too.
I would assume such a rule would be for the sake of the non-lawyer, for whom being tied to someone who has been taught to «
think like a lawyer» could only amount to cruel and unusual punishment.
The problem is, many people do not know how to
think like a lawyer.
In the ATL keynote, Ed Walters of Fastcase coined the phrase, «
think like a lawyer, but not only a lawyer.»
Law schools teach students to «
think like a lawyer» through the appellate case method developed by Christopher Langdell of Harvard Law School in the late 19th century.
And for the jobs that you are describing, law students need to graduate with skills beyond just the ability to analyze law and
think like a lawyer.
As a 1L, your Contracts class made
you think like a lawyer.
People who have been through law school know how to
think like lawyers.
«Newly aware that «
thinking like a lawyer» is holding him back, he takes to heart what clients often dislike about their lawyers: arrogance, poor communication, missed deadlines, unexplained bills, uninformed associates.
Dan Hull says, «The ability «to
think like a lawyer» is about 10 % of what you need to be an effective lawyer.»
Will this still require them to «
think like a lawyer»?