The concept of learning to ‘think like a lawyer’ is one of the cornerstones of legal education in the United States and beyond. In this book, Jeffrey Lipshaw provides a critique of the traditional views of ‘thinking like a lawyer’ or ‘pure lawyering’ aimed at lawyers, law professors, and students who want to understand lawyering beyond the traditional warrior metaphor. Drawing on his extensive experience at the intersection of real world law and business issues, Professor Lipshaw presents a sophisticated philosophical argument that the "pure lawyering" of traditional legal education is agnostic to either truth or moral value of outcomes. He demonstrates pure lawyering’s potential both for illusions of certainty and cynical instrumentalism, and the consequences of both when lawyers are called on as dealmakers, policymakers, and counsellors. This book offers an avenue for getting beyond (or unlearning) merely how to think like a lawyer. It combines legal theory, philosophy of knowledge, and doctrine with an appreciation of real-life judgment calls that multi-disciplinary lawyers are called upon to make. The book will be of great interest to scholars of legal education, legal language and reasoning as well as professors who teach both doctrine and thinking and writing skills in the first year law school curriculum; and for anyone who is interested in seeking a perspective on ‘thinking like a lawyer’ beyond the litigation arena.

The concept of learning to 'think like a lawyer' is one of the cornerstones of legal education in the United States and beyond. In this book, Jeffrey Lipshaw provides a critique of the traditional views of 'thinking like a lawyer' or 'pure lawyering' aimed at lawyers, law professors, and students who want to understand lawyering beyond the traditional warrior metaphor. Drawing on his extensive experience at the intersection of real world law and business issues, Professor Lipshaw presents a sophisticated philosophical argument that the "pure lawyering" of traditional legal education is agnostic to either truth or moral value of outcomes. He demonstrates pure lawyering's potential both for illusions of certainty and cynical instrumentalism, and the consequences of both when lawyers are called on as dealmakers, policymakers, and counsellors. This book offers an avenue for getting beyond (or unlearning) merely how to think like a lawyer. It combines legal theory, philosophy of knowledge, and doctrine with an appreciation of real-life judgment calls that multi-disciplinary lawyers are called upon to make. The book will be of great interest to scholars of legal education, legal language and reasoning as well as professors who teach both doctrine and thinking and writing skills in the first year law school curriculum; and for anyone who is interested in seeking a perspective on 'thinking like a lawyer' beyond the litigation arena.

The concept of learning to ‘think like a lawyer’ is one of the cornerstones of legal education in the United States and beyond. In this book, Jeffrey Lipshaw provides a critique of the traditional views of ‘thinking like a lawyer’ or ‘pure lawyering’ aimed at lawyers, law professors, and students who want to understand lawyering beyond the traditional warrior metaphor. Drawing on his extensive experience at the intersection of real world law and business issues, Professor Lipshaw presents a sophisticated philosophical argument that the "pure lawyering" of traditional legal education is agnostic to either truth or moral value of outcomes. He demonstrates pure lawyering’s potential both for illusions of certainty and cynical instrumentalism, and the consequences of both when lawyers are called on as dealmakers, policymakers, and counsellors. This book offers an avenue for getting beyond (or unlearning) merely how to think like a lawyer. It combines legal theory, philosophy of knowledge, and doctrine with an appreciation of real-life judgment calls that multi-disciplinary lawyers are called upon to make. The book will be of great interest to scholars of legal education, legal language and reasoning as well as professors who teach both doctrine and thinking and writing skills in the first year law school curriculum; and for anyone who is interested in seeking a perspective on ‘thinking like a lawyer’ beyond the litigation arena.

La 4e de couverture indique : "Legal reasoning : collected essays includes four essays written over a twenty-year span that present a comprehensive and original account of legal reasoning as done by judges, lawyers, and legal academics. In a work that is likely to become the definitive introduction to critical legal theory by a leading theorist of the critical legal studies movement, the author has been the first to put together in a systematic way the insights of American legal realism with continental phenomenology and semiotics. His version of legal reasoning presents it as "work in a medium" deploying a set of "argument-bites" analogous to the words of a language. The result is simultaneous freedom and constraint. Kennedy then turns his approach to a critique of current European legal theory, with an essay on Hart and Kelsen and another on the approach of the European jurists pre-occupied with "coherence" and with the "European social model" in the current process of harmonization of European law."

When Kenneth J. Vandevelde's Thinking Like a Lawyer first published, it became an instant classic, considered by many to be the gold standard introduction to legal reasoning. In this long-awaited second edition, intended for fans of the original and a new generation of lawyers, Vandevelde expands his classic work with useful revisions and updates throughout. Law students, law professors, and lawyers frequently refer to the process of “thinking like a lawyer,” but attempts to analyze in any systematic way what is meant by that phrase are rare. Vandevelde defines this elusive phrase and identifies the techniques involved in thinking like a lawyer. Unlike most legal writings, plagued by difficult, virtually incomprehensible language, Vandevelde's work is accessible and clearly written. The second edition features new sections on the legislative process—describing step-by-step how legislation is enacted—and the judicial process—describing step-by-step how a case is litigated in court. Other new sections address the significance of dissenting and concurring opinions as well as the role of cognitive bias in factual determinations and on persuading a jury, on burdens of proof, and on presumptions. A new chapter provides contemporary perspectives on legal reasoning, which includes new material on feminist legal theory, critical race theory, and the economics of law. A new appendix is intended for prospective law students, explaining how readers can use the techniques in the book to help them excel in law school. Vandevelde's Thinking Like a Lawyer will help students, lawyers, and lay readers alike gain important insight into a well-developed and valuable way of thinking. Professors and students will find the book useful in almost any introductory law course at the graduate level and in advanced undergraduate courses on law.

Vols. for 1902- include decisions of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals and various other courts of the District of Columbia.