Actually, it's just how you do the job.

Recognizing how personal relationships affect the law allows one to craft more innovative legal solutions by providing an additional thread on which to tug. A lawyer who understands the complex organic processes that influence the law is a lawyer who has the ability to more creatively approach his work.

How about "being a lawyer is about communicating with people"?

Not necessarily. But if he doesn't have them he makes them.

A relationship with the prosecutor, the judge and the “higher-ups” is all he needs to save a young man from a little over-zealousness resulting in a life sentence or worse. When Robinson opens his big mouth when meeting with a colleague, he isn't doing any legal work in the traditional sense. He isn't proposing a theory or fact to exonerate his client. Nevertheless, Robinson's relationships make all the difference in the legal process.

When I worked in the San Francisco D.A.'s office, these meetings used to happen in the hallway outside Courtroom 9. This was where public defenders would line up to exchange pleasantries and talk shop with my boss. By maintaining a relationship with the prosecutor, these attorneys could broker deals and influence the law in a way that might prove impossible during actual court proceedings. Often, these discussions determined the defendant's fate alone; court proceedings were only allusions, the usual transcendental nonsense. Whatever was said outside the courtroom between the attorneys determined how the defendant was prosecuted.

Were you ashamed at the injustice? Did you look at the defendant the way you'd look at a goat about to be killed in religious sacrifice? Did you believe it didn't matter because he deserved to be in jail anyway? What would you want your lawyer to do if you were the defendant to whom that happened? If you were the defendant's counsel, would you lick the prosecutor's shoes to get your clients out of jail sooner?

You think Robinson is telling her to be patient because obstruction of justice might or will occur? I thought we covered that in class.

What?

Thus, personal relationships affect the law, and the law can be used to affect personal relationships. If the law is what it does and not what it is called, then personal relationships can be understood to be one of the organic, social functions that largely affects what the law does. A creative lawyer recognizes the value of relationships between individuals, and will manipulate these relationships to manufacture favorable outcomes. Thus, one of the realities for a lawyer practicing any type of law, is that he must be prepared to use his relationships as well as the relationships between others to affect change in the law.

These sentences are purely repetitive. What needed to be said here, according to the outline?

In my opinion, law school doesn't sufficiently help us realize this unpleasant truth, let alone educate us in how to effectively, legally and morally utilize these personal relationships. And setting aside the question of law school efficacy for now, how should we individually limit the way we exploit our relationships with others?

What is "unpleasant" about the obvious fact that practicing law is a social activity? What is the difference between "exploiting a relationship" and "being in a relationship"?

But what, other than the obviously prohibited act of betraying a client in order to help a friend, was the supposed complexity here? There was no softness to the line there, and no other content to the graf.

It's not enough to say that personal relationship affect the way lawyers practice. In some cases, elements of these personal relationships are the legal elements. A defendant is acquitted because any evidence against him is thrown out due to an illegal search and seizure. A defendant is acquitted because his particularly attractive lawyer makes a compelling, seductive motion that the judge can't help but grant despite shaky legal grounds.

I don't think that's credible. Because a lawyer sweet-talked a jury? Perhaps. But a judge was sweet-talked into granting an acquittal? Tell me another.

Wherever we draw the line on what the law is, we better be prepared to deal with the things that lie on both sides of that line. As lawyers, the relationships we build with each other are as essential to our practice as the laws of any jurisdiction are. Without making any ground-breaking conclusions, its possible that building strong relationships with each other might actually make us better lawyers than single-mindedly pursuing an A in contracts.

There's almost no here here. Law is a social activity, what we do in society is made of relationships between people. There are ethical and unethical ways to conduct professional relationships. Cut and wrap. The rest—the repetitive sentences, the sounding empty phrases like "wherever we draw the line on what the law is, we better be prepared to deal with the things that lie on both sides of that line," or "without making any ground-breaking conclusions" or "a creative lawyer recognizes the value of relationships between individuals," the "might actually" and "setting aside the question"—is bullshit.

The way to improve the draft is to return to the beginning of the outline and refine your own central idea. When you have located it, write it simply at the top, as clearly as you can. Outline its exposition, showing how you adduce facts in its support and interpret its complexities. Figure out which objections need to be addressed, and address them. Show where the reader might take your idea further, and leave the reader to do that work as she wishes.