Why everyone should think like a lawyer

[CO. Hoosier]

https://www.livemint.com/special-report/why-everyone-should-think-like-a-lawyer-11725018108784.html

Pretty interesting take on applying lawyer-think to business everyday life.

Scott Turow, an excellent legal fiction writer, described a legal education like this :

But legal education is not about specific cases or statutes. It is, as Mr Turow later understands, about processing a mountain of information and exercising judgment. It teaches how to infer rules from patterns, use analogies, anticipate what might happen next, accept ambiguity and be ready to question everything.​

​

I mostly agree, especially the part about being ready to question everything. Particularly when group-think is involved. But should everybody think like a lawyer? Not at all. Not all lawyers think like a lawyer. Variety is good. But the independence lawyers bring to the table is important.

 

[snarlcakes]

@crazed_hoosier2 you need to read this article and apply it to your life.

 

[mcmurtry66]

https://www.livemint.com/special-report/why-everyone-should-think-like-a-lawyer-11725018108784.html

Pretty interesting take on applying lawyer-think to business everyday life.

Scott Turow, an excellent legal fiction writer, described a legal education like this :

But legal education is not about specific cases or statutes. It is, as Mr Turow later understands, about processing a mountain of information and exercising judgment. It teaches how to infer rules from patterns, use analogies, anticipate what might happen next, accept ambiguity and be ready to question everything.​

​

I mostly agree, especially the part about being ready to question everything. Particularly when group-think is involved. But should everybody think like a lawyer? Not at all. Not all lawyers think like a lawyer. Variety is good. But the independence lawyers bring to the table is important.

I will say that legal training is assistive in allowing you to think a certain way but I’m not sure the practice is healthy. I think many spend so much time arguing that it’s inculcated and you become consumed. It’s not great. I’ll also add that legal training helps with the legal aspects of business but not much else. It’s no substitute for business school I’m sure. Most of my partners are lawyers and we think we know everything with business and we’re pretty lousy at it

 

[BadWakeboarder]

I will say that legal training is assistive in allowing you to think a certain way but I’m not sure the practice is healthy. I think many spend so much time arguing that it’s inculcated and you become consumed. It’s not great. I’ll also add that legal training helps with the legal aspects of business but not much else. It’s no substitute for business school I’m sure. Most of my partners are lawyers and we think we know everything with business and we’re pretty lousy at it

Even business school is more of a gate to pass through rather than a value-added education. Other than networking and the diploma - you don’t learn much.

The real astute business minds have:

• Experience in their field
• An entrepreneurial mindset
• Firm grasp on economics and measuring cost and benefit of an economic (micro) decision
• The ability to reach out to experts

 

[BradStevens]

@crazed_hoosier2 you need to read this article and apply it to your life.

 

[mcmurtry66]

Even business school is more of a gate to pass through rather than a value-added education. Other than networking and the diploma - you don’t learn much.

The real astute business minds have:

• Experience in their field
• An entrepreneurial mindset
• Firm grasp on economics and measuring cost and benefit of an economic (micro) decision
• The ability to reach out to experts

Well I have two of the four.

 

[BradStevens]

Even business school is more of a gate to pass through rather than a value-added education. Other than networking and the diploma - you don’t learn much.

The real astute business minds have:

• Experience in their field
• An entrepreneurial mindset
• Firm grasp on economics and measuring cost and benefit of an economic (micro) decision
• The ability to reach out to experts

Jeff Bezos

Mark Zuckerberg

Elon Musk

Jamie Dimon

What do all four have in common, besides being self-made billionaires? None of them got an undergraduate degree in business. (or law degree, obvi)

 

[WhyisIUBBcursed]

I will say that legal training is assistive in allowing you to think a certain way but I’m not sure the practice is healthy. I think many spend so much time arguing that it’s inculcated and you become consumed. It’s not great. I’ll also add that legal training helps with the legal aspects of business but not much else. It’s no substitute for business school I’m sure. Most of my partners are lawyers and we think we know everything with business and we’re pretty lousy at it

Sounds like owning a practice after med school. Let me cast your arm and then I’ll look at either a P&L sheet or a proverb written in Chinese as they both make the same amount of sense to me

 

[mattndallas]

 

[BadWakeboarder]

Jeff Bezos

Mark Zuckerberg

Elon Musk

Jamie Dimon

What do all four have in common, besides being self-made billionaires? None of them got an undergraduate degree in business. (or law degree, obvi)

Dimon is a Harvard MBA

 

[CO. Hoosier]

I will say that legal training is assistive in allowing you to think a certain way but I’m not sure the practice is healthy. I think many spend so much time arguing that it’s inculcated and you become consumed. It’s not great. I’ll also add that legal training helps with the legal aspects of business but not much else. It’s no substitute for business school I’m sure. Most of my partners are lawyers and we think we know everything with business and we’re pretty lousy at it

Mostly disagree. Legal training is not law training. It’s mind training and those skills transfer to many disciplines and endeavors. The arguing part is not all bad, it is a pretty good leaning tool, but yeah, it can be abused. Abuses are more about personality and character than thinking like a lawyer.

I’ll. Illustrate with a real world example

Me: Do you want to go out to eat?

Stoker: where would we go?

Me: What does that have to do with whether you wanna go out?

Stoker: I don’t know if I wanna go out unless I know ehere we are going.

Me: pick one.

Stoker: I don’t care, you decide.

Me: Chinese.

Stoker: What would you order?

Me: Where’s the peanut butter.

Moral: Layers prioritize and make decisions.

 

[BradStevens]

Dimon is a Harvard MBA

Yes he is. Economics and psychology in undergrad. Firmly liberal arts!

 

[mcmurtry66]

Yes he is. Economics and psychology in undergrad. Firmly liberal arts!

YASSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS PSYCHOLOGY AND ECONOMICS
Your mind on your money

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Mostly disagree. Legal training is not law training. It’s mind training and those skills transfer to many disciplines and endeavors. The arguing part is not all bad, it is a pretty good leaning tool, but yeah, it can be abused. Abuses are more about personality and character than thinking like a lawyer.

I’ll. Illustrate with a real world example

Me: Do you want to go out to eat?

Stoker: where would we go?

Me: What does that have to do with whether you wanna go out?

Stoker: I don’t know if I wanna go out unless I know ehere we are going.

Me: pick one.

Stoker: I don’t care, you decide.

Me: Chinese.

Stoker: What would you order?

Me: Where’s the peanut butter.

Moral: Layers prioritize and make decisions.

And to finish out the lawyer thinking, how much are you billing us for that story? I'm sure you made it a longer story to get maximum billing.

 

[outside shooter]

No, everyone should think like a scientist.

Somebody makes a claim, you ask them for supporting data.

They give you none, then you ignore them. "Belief" without support is for fools.

They give you data, you evaluate it. Determine how to logically test the conclusions, and if others have tested it. Look for flaws in reasoning.

Be dispassionate. Don't look at the data with a preconception.

Follow the truth & facts. Don't over-conclude. Summarize what the findings support, no more, no less. Suggest further ways to test the conclusions.

Lawyers want to "win" at all costs, to be an advocate no matter what, rather than seeking the truth. Half the time their aim is to muddy the truth.

 

[Bulk VanderHuge]

Mostly disagree. Legal training is not law training. It’s mind training and those skills transfer to many disciplines and endeavors. The arguing part is not all bad, it is a pretty good leaning tool, but yeah, it can be abused. Abuses are more about personality and character than thinking like a lawyer.

I’ll. Illustrate with a real world example

Me: Do you want to go out to eat?

Stoker: where would we go?

Me: What does that have to do with whether you wanna go out?

Stoker: I don’t know if I wanna go out unless I know ehere we are going.

Me: pick one.

Stoker: I don’t care, you decide.

Me: Chinese.

Stoker: What would you order?

Me: Where’s the peanut butter.

Moral: Layers prioritize and make decisions.

(Pssst...she kicked your ass.)

 

[Bulk VanderHuge]

If the law school/profession represented on this board are a fair indication...no thanks.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

@crazed_hoosier2 you need to read this article and apply it to your life.

Heh.

I have to stick up for myself here. I don’t disdain lawyers as a class. I disdain a certain kind of lawyer.

It’s kinda like people who lend money. I have no problem with lenders - but I do if you throw the word “payday” in front of it. And I look at payday lenders and Lawsuit, Inc. lawyers as pretty much birds of a feather.

 

[BadWakeboarder]

No, everyone should think like a scientist.

Somebody makes a claim, you ask them for supporting data.

They give you none, then you ignore them. "Belief" without support is for fools.

They give you data, you evaluate it. Determine how to logically test the conclusions, and if others have tested it. Look for flaws in reasoning.

Be dispassionate. Don't look at the data with a preconception.

Follow the truth & facts. Don't over-conclude. Summarize what the findings support, no more, no less. Suggest further ways to test the conclusions.

Lawyers want to "win" at all costs, to be an advocate no matter what, rather than seeking the truth. Half the time their aim is to muddy the truth.

If only scientists adhered to this…..

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Heh.

I have to stick up for myself here. I don’t disdain lawyers as a class. I disdain a certain kind of lawyer.

It’s kinda like people who lend money. I have no problem with lenders - but I do if you throw the word “payday” in front of it. And I look at payday lenders and Lawsuit, Inc. lawyers as pretty much birds of a feather.

Lawyers in those commercials about accidents sure deserve disdain. Though I am sure they make enough that they do not care.

 

[mcmurtry66]

Lawyers in those commercials about accidents sure deserve disdain. Though I am sure they make enough that they do not care.

Ruined the business and the reputation of the industry

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

And to finish out the lawyer thinking, how much are you billing us for that story? I'm sure you made it a longer story to get maximum billing.

Now that I can relate to!

You know you’ve got a lawyer on the other end of the phone if they take 45 minutes to express some sentiment that any other person could and would convey in 2 minutes, tops.

I actually told one of our lawyers once that she can feel free to bill us for however long she plans to filibuster a conversation if she’d at least do me the courtesy of not making me spend all of that time in addition to my money. Just bill your damn hour and be done with it.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Lawyers in those commercials about accidents sure deserve disdain. Though I am sure they make enough that they do not care.

And the same can be said for payday lenders, timeshare salesmen, televangelists, Donald Trump, and everybody else engaged in the arts of grift and confidence.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

And the same can be said for payday lenders, timeshare salesmen, televangelists, Donald Trump, and everybody else engaged in the arts of grift and confidence.

And to show that I’m an equal opportunity disdainer…I’ll also add most contractors to the list. Especially ones that deal with residential work.

Lots of slimeballs in my industry. Some of them have impressive talents in hosing people who don’t know any better.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

And to show that I’m an equal opportunity disdainer…I’ll also add most contractors to the list. Especially ones that deal with residential work.

Lots of slimeballs in my industry. Some of them have impressive talents in hosing people who don’t know any better.

I signed up for this furnace/AC inspection service. Of course the furnace has a soon to crack heat exchanger and the AC has one foot in the grave and the other deeper in the grave.

I need to find a service that doesn't sell product, just services as clearly there is a trust issue.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

I signed up for this furnace/AC inspection service. Of course the furnace has a soon to crack heat exchanger and the AC has one foot in the grave and the other deeper in the grave.

I need to find a service that doesn't sell product, just services as clearly there is a trust issue.

 

[BradStevens]

No, everyone should think like a scientist.

Somebody makes a claim, you ask them for supporting data.

They give you none, then you ignore them. "Belief" without support is for fools.

They give you data, you evaluate it. Determine how to logically test the conclusions, and if others have tested it. Look for flaws in reasoning.

Be dispassionate. Don't look at the data with a preconception.

Follow the truth & facts. Don't over-conclude. Summarize what the findings support, no more, no less. Suggest further ways to test the conclusions.

Lawyers want to "win" at all costs, to be an advocate no matter what, rather than seeking the truth. Half the time their aim is to muddy the truth.

Could you please support your first sentence and last two sentences with data?

If you believe those without such data, according to your own stated principles, that makes you a fool?

 

[larsIU]

The ability to reach out to experts

I’d add…the self awareness to know they need them.

Ruined the business and the reputation of the industry

To be sure, a law offfice will make sure your bills get paid and that your interests in a tort situation are represented. For a fee of course.

I say that as a long suffering claims adjuster back in the day. The good ones made the whole process easier and more predictable.

You know you’ve got a lawyer on the other end of the phone if they take 45 minutes to express some sentiment that any other person could and would convey in 2 minutes, tops.

Wanna join a book club?

 

[twenty02]

I signed up for this furnace/AC inspection service. Of course the furnace has a soon to crack heat exchanger and the AC has one foot in the grave and the other deeper in the grave.

I need to find a service that doesn't sell product, just services as clearly there is a trust issue.

Just be on the search for a reputable owner/operator. I have two I use... They do all the work themselves.... Outside of hiring a helper for installs.

Never hire a HVAC company that employ sales people. Margins in that business can be ridiculous. And all the equipment is basically the same with different brand labels slapped on them.

 

[paige3]

Jeff Bezos

Mark Zuckerberg

Elon Musk

Jamie Dimon

What do all four have in common, besides being self-made billionaires? None of them got an undergraduate degree in business. (or law degree, obvi)

 

[Morrison]

And to finish out the lawyer thinking, how much are you billing us for that story? I'm sure you made it a longer story to get maximum billing.

Exactly. If we all thought like lawyers, we’d be charging each other $1000 bucks per hour for our life changing, provocative posts. 😊

 

[BadWakeboarder]

I’d add…the self awareness to know they need them.


To be sure, a law offfice will make sure your bills get paid and that your interests in a tort situation are represented. For a fee of course.

I say that as a long suffering claims adjuster back in the day. The good ones made the whole process easier and more predictable.


Wanna join a book club?

I worded it poorly. When I said “the ability” I meant the humility to know to reach them.

 

[mattndallas]

Mostly disagree. Legal training is not law training. It’s mind training and those skills transfer to many disciplines and endeavors. The arguing part is not all bad, it is a pretty good leaning tool, but yeah, it can be abused. Abuses are more about personality and character than thinking like a lawyer.

I’ll. Illustrate with a real world example

Me: Do you want to go out to eat?

Stoker: where would we go?

Me: What does that have to do with whether you wanna go out?

Stoker: I don’t know if I wanna go out unless I know ehere we are going.

Me: pick one.

Stoker: I don’t care, you decide.

Me: Chinese.

Stoker: What would you order?

Me: Where’s the peanut butter.

Moral: Layers prioritize and make decisions.

Kelley grad example:

Me: Give me a BJ and we'll go up to Del Frisco's.

Wife: Gugh gugh gugh gugh... (hits autostart on the Suburban).

 

[CO. Hoosier]

No, everyone should think like a scientist.

Somebody makes a claim, you ask them for supporting data.

They give you none, then you ignore them. "Belief" without support is for fools.

They give you data, you evaluate it. Determine how to logically test the conclusions, and if others have tested it. Look for flaws in reasoning.

Be dispassionate. Don't look at the data with a preconception.

Follow the truth & facts. Don't over-conclude. Summarize what the findings support, no more, no less. Suggest further ways to test the conclusions.

Lawyers want to "win" at all costs, to be an advocate no matter what, rather than seeking the truth. Half the time their aim is to muddy the truth.

In other words

Scientists strive to be like AI

Lawyers strive to maintain the human element.

 

[Univee2]

In other words

Scientists strive to be like AI

Lawyers strive to maintain the human element.

“. . . . the human element.”

Yeah, that’s why there aren’t any lawyer jokes out there . . . .

 

[Marvin the Martian]

In other words

Scientists strive to be like AI

Lawyers strive to maintain the human element.

I am not sure your point, that lawyers don't reevaluate their position based on new evidence?

I will pick on my side just to make you happy. At the beginning of COVID we had no idea, so shutting down schools made sense. But evidence came in that *most* kids had little to fear from COVID. So changing one's opinion to opening schools up became the answer based on the scientific method. Too many rejected it.

Now we would have to make exceptions for kids with immunity issues or who lived with people with such health issues.

The charge we often make of "flip-flop" is actually a compliment. Sticking to an opinion just because it is what you believed a year ago makes little sense.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

“. . . . the human element.”

Yeah, that’s why there aren’t any lawyer jokes out there . . . .

There aren’t any jokes about what a machine does. Boring.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

I am not sure your point, that lawyers don't reevaluate their position based on new evidence?

I will pick on my side just to make you happy. At the beginning of COVID we had no idea, so shutting down schools made sense. But evidence came in that *most* kids had little to fear from COVID. So changing one's opinion to opening schools up became the answer based on the scientific method. Too many rejected it.

Now we would have to make exceptions for kids with immunity issues or who lived with people with such health issues.

The charge we often make of "flip-flop" is actually a compliment. Sticking to an opinion just because it is what you believed a year ago makes little sense.

Lawyers constantly change and modify arguments. Rubes might call that moving the goal posts. I call it splitting more hairs. Think of it like the motion offense. The objective stays the same.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Lawyers constantly change and modify arguments. Rubes might call that moving the goal posts. I call it splitting more hairs. Think of it like the motion offense. The objective stays the same.

Modify argument is not the same as change position. In military think, "we should not defend this open ground, let us stay here and modify our position" is not the same as "we should not defend this open ground, let us move onto that ridge behind that river."

 

[Univee2]

There aren’t any jokes about what a machine does. Boring.

A guy asked the gym trainer what machine he should use to get the best-looking women.

“Try the ATM machine outside.”