|
WilliamKingFirstPaper 5 - 25 Aug 2009 - Main.EbenMoglen
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
| |
<
< | It is strongly recommended that you include your outline in the body of your essay by using the outline as section titles. The headings below are there to remind you how section and subsection titles are formatted. | | | Leff, Lawyering and Law School
-- Second Revision | | | Intro
| |
<
< | In the conclusion of Swindling and Selling, Arthur Leff offers his opinion about how lawyers think and what lawyers do. According to Leff, lawyers anticipate and influence the future by engaging in an analysis of social phenomena. If Leff’s assertions are true, it seems that the average law school curriculum does not effectively teach lawyering. The methodology of teaching the law solely through judicial opinions lacks a fundamental focus on the underlying social factors involved in human interaction. One way to remedy this divide is to incorporate social science into the legal curriculum.
| >
> | In the conclusion of Swindling and Selling, Arthur Leff offers his opinion about how lawyers think and what lawyers do. According to Leff, lawyers anticipate and influence the future by engaging in an analysis of social phenomena. If Leff’s assertions are true, it seems that the average law school curriculum does not effectively teach lawyering. The methodology of teaching the law solely through judicial opinions lacks a fundamental focus on the underlying social factors involved in human interaction. One way to remedy this divide is to incorporate social science into the legal curriculum. | | |
How Do Lawyers Think? | |
<
< | | | | According to Leff, lawyers find value in the “transaction cost” of a particular case. Leff defines “transaction cost” as the actual behavior of actual people in actual transactions. Unlike economists, who theorize in absolutes, it is essential for lawyers to examine the social forces at work between the engaged parties to a dispute. Lawyers not only need to be equipped with the knowledge of why person A committed act X, but also how factors Z and W influenced A’s actions. By analyzing the causes and effects that create particular human action, lawyers are better positioned to counsel their clients. | |
<
< | Implicit in Leff’s theory is the necessity for lawyers to understand what social dynamics have influenced their client’s mobility. In any given situation, an individual is both restrained and privileged by their social status. When a lawyer pays close attention to the actual phenomena taking place in his client’s world, he is able to understand the structures and processes that are at work. Consequently, a lawyer uses this information to advocate for his client in the most efficient and logical manner.
| >
> | Implicit in Leff’s theory is the necessity for lawyers to
understand what social dynamics have influenced their client’s
mobility. In any given situation, an
individual is both restrained and privileged by their
social status. When a lawyer pays
close attention to the actual phenomena taking place in his
client’s world, he is able to understand the structures and
processes that are at work. Consequently, a lawyer uses this
information to advocate for his client in the most efficient and
logical manner.
- Suppose I rewrote this as: "Leff thinks lawyers have to understand their clients' motivations and social constraints. In order to give good advice and advocate effectively, lawyers need to pay close attention to the realities of their clients' lives." That would increase simplicity and therefore clarity. What, if anything, would be lost?
| | |
What Do Lawyers Do? | |
<
< | | | | Leff asserts that a lawyer’s job is to “consider alternative future social snapshots and then attempt to encourage or prevent their actualization by facilitating or retarding particular human action.” Lawyering is therefore a form of social instrumentation. The lawyer who, can anticipate the future, can simultaneously use his knowledge to help shape the future. In this regard, lawyers influence society in ways the legislature cannot. Unlike politicians who are always susceptible to influence and pressure from constituents, lawyers have the opportunity to think and act freely. Lawyers can choose where and for whom they work. Lawyers therefore have the ability to choose what problems they seek to solve.
Assuming that lawyering involves the encouragement or prevention of an anticipated future, it is still unclear why Leff believes lawyers act in this way. Whereas, optimists argue that lawyers anticipate the future out of a desire to remedy rising problems, cynics argue that lawyers desire only to use their knowledge to gain benefits at the expense of others. Nevertheless, Leff ignores passing a moral judgment on lawyering and instead seeks to only characterize its nature. Lawyers, regardless of morality, use their knowledge of human interaction and social phenomena to cause other humans to act in a certain way. | |
<
< | | | |
Leff and the Law School Curriculum | |
<
< | | | | It is essential for lawyers to characterize their clients though an analysis of social phenomena. Accompanying an examination of various social conditions is an ability to navigate and advocate. Nevertheless, the current model followed by the majority of law schools seems to lacks this methodology. The process of learning the law by solely reading judicial opinions does not offer students the full scope of the “transaction cost” of each case. Leff illustrates how underlying social factors can influence the outcome of a case; yet these factors are often given little attention in the law school classroom. Universities should make a conscious effort to supplement judicial opinions, with a study of the social, economic and psychological influences that shape and constrain a person’s ability to acquire justice.
By incorporating other disciplines into the law school curriculum, students will be better equipped to consider the “alternative future snapshots” that lawyers use to encourage or prevent future action. If a student focuses not only on the law, but also on how the law influences human behavior, the student acquires a more general knowledge of how the world works. Congressional intent on behalf of lawmakers is crucial into the formulation of statutes and laws. These Congressmen are influenced by the social dynamics of the world in which they exist. Law students, by studying these factors, will be able to anticipate how and why a law was formed. This allows the student to begin to theorize how to use his knowledge to facilitate future action. | |
<
< | | | |
Conclusion | |
<
< | | | | Arthur Leff’s characterization of the nature of lawyering perpetuates the notion that lawyers, in order to implement change, must have an immense awareness of the past and present. The knowledge that is essential to lawyers, consist of more than simply learning the law. Subsequently, law school students should be exposed to more than judicial opinions. If the law school curriculum also consists of social science, law school students will develop an understanding of human interaction. They can then use this information to serve as better advocates for their future clients.
\ No newline at end of file | |
>
> |
- This revision is valuable because it offers a clearer and simpler draft, in better linguistic order. Some smoothing and reshaping could still be useful, but now we can get closer to the concepts too. At center, the essay says Leff says lawyers need to understand social context. It says that this implies a different form of training, with more social science in the law student's preparation set, so that the realities determining how law really works when it is applied will be understood. This is the program of American Legal Realism from seventy years ago, as I showed by reference to other readings (Cohen, Frank, Arnold). The draft before us uses pretty much all its available space to remake those points. If it were more compressed in its way of expressing those basic ideas, for which I tried to provide a model or two in the comments, there would be more room to go beyond that basic insight to say something new about where we are today.
| | | \ No newline at end of file |
|
|
WilliamKingFirstPaper 4 - 20 Apr 2009 - Main.WilliamKing
|
|
<
< | Revision 3 is unreadable | >
> |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
It is strongly recommended that you include your outline in the body of your essay by using the outline as section titles. The headings below are there to remind you how section and subsection titles are formatted.
Leff, Lawyering and Law School
-- Second Revision
Intro
In the conclusion of Swindling and Selling, Arthur Leff offers his opinion about how lawyers think and what lawyers do. According to Leff, lawyers anticipate and influence the future by engaging in an analysis of social phenomena. If Leff’s assertions are true, it seems that the average law school curriculum does not effectively teach lawyering. The methodology of teaching the law solely through judicial opinions lacks a fundamental focus on the underlying social factors involved in human interaction. One way to remedy this divide is to incorporate social science into the legal curriculum.
How Do Lawyers Think?
According to Leff, lawyers find value in the “transaction cost” of a particular case. Leff defines “transaction cost” as the actual behavior of actual people in actual transactions. Unlike economists, who theorize in absolutes, it is essential for lawyers to examine the social forces at work between the engaged parties to a dispute. Lawyers not only need to be equipped with the knowledge of why person A committed act X, but also how factors Z and W influenced A’s actions. By analyzing the causes and effects that create particular human action, lawyers are better positioned to counsel their clients.
Implicit in Leff’s theory is the necessity for lawyers to understand what social dynamics have influenced their client’s mobility. In any given situation, an individual is both restrained and privileged by their social status. When a lawyer pays close attention to the actual phenomena taking place in his client’s world, he is able to understand the structures and processes that are at work. Consequently, a lawyer uses this information to advocate for his client in the most efficient and logical manner.
What Do Lawyers Do?
Leff asserts that a lawyer’s job is to “consider alternative future social snapshots and then attempt to encourage or prevent their actualization by facilitating or retarding particular human action.” Lawyering is therefore a form of social instrumentation. The lawyer who, can anticipate the future, can simultaneously use his knowledge to help shape the future. In this regard, lawyers influence society in ways the legislature cannot. Unlike politicians who are always susceptible to influence and pressure from constituents, lawyers have the opportunity to think and act freely. Lawyers can choose where and for whom they work. Lawyers therefore have the ability to choose what problems they seek to solve.
Assuming that lawyering involves the encouragement or prevention of an anticipated future, it is still unclear why Leff believes lawyers act in this way. Whereas, optimists argue that lawyers anticipate the future out of a desire to remedy rising problems, cynics argue that lawyers desire only to use their knowledge to gain benefits at the expense of others. Nevertheless, Leff ignores passing a moral judgment on lawyering and instead seeks to only characterize its nature. Lawyers, regardless of morality, use their knowledge of human interaction and social phenomena to cause other humans to act in a certain way.
Leff and the Law School Curriculum
It is essential for lawyers to characterize their clients though an analysis of social phenomena. Accompanying an examination of various social conditions is an ability to navigate and advocate. Nevertheless, the current model followed by the majority of law schools seems to lacks this methodology. The process of learning the law by solely reading judicial opinions does not offer students the full scope of the “transaction cost” of each case. Leff illustrates how underlying social factors can influence the outcome of a case; yet these factors are often given little attention in the law school classroom. Universities should make a conscious effort to supplement judicial opinions, with a study of the social, economic and psychological influences that shape and constrain a person’s ability to acquire justice.
By incorporating other disciplines into the law school curriculum, students will be better equipped to consider the “alternative future snapshots” that lawyers use to encourage or prevent future action. If a student focuses not only on the law, but also on how the law influences human behavior, the student acquires a more general knowledge of how the world works. Congressional intent on behalf of lawmakers is crucial into the formulation of statutes and laws. These Congressmen are influenced by the social dynamics of the world in which they exist. Law students, by studying these factors, will be able to anticipate how and why a law was formed. This allows the student to begin to theorize how to use his knowledge to facilitate future action.
Conclusion
Arthur Leff’s characterization of the nature of lawyering perpetuates the notion that lawyers, in order to implement change, must have an immense awareness of the past and present. The knowledge that is essential to lawyers, consist of more than simply learning the law. Subsequently, law school students should be exposed to more than judicial opinions. If the law school curriculum also consists of social science, law school students will develop an understanding of human interaction. They can then use this information to serve as better advocates for their future clients.
|
|
|
WilliamKingFirstPaper 3 - 19 Apr 2009 - Main.TatsuyaSagawa
|
|
>
> | Revision 3 is unreadable | |
<
< |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
It is strongly recommended that you include your outline in the body of your essay by using the outline as section titles. The headings below are there to remind you how section and subsection titles are formatted.
Leff, Lawyering and Law School
-- By WilliamKing - 27 Feb 2009
Intro
In his conclusion of Swindling and Selling, Arthur Leff uses his research to describe how lawyers think and what lawyers do. Lawyering, according to Leff, involves thinking about the underlining social phenomenon of the world, as well as anticipating the future. If Leff’s assertions are true, then there is a divide between what lawyers do and what law school students are learning. The methodology of teaching the law solely through the reading of judicial opinions does not effectively reach Leff’s scope of lawyering. One way to remedy this divide is to incorporate social science into the legal curriculum.
How Do Lawyers Think?
According to Leff, lawyers, unlike economist who ignore the microreality of transaction by reasoning in the absence of transaction cost, find importance within transaction cost. Leff states that it is the “actual behavior of actual people in actual transactions that is of particular interest” for lawyers. It is essential for a lawyer to examine the underlining social forces at work between the engaged parties. Lawyers need to be equipped with the knowledge of why person A committed act X and furthermore what influences acts Z and W had on A, prior to the commencing of X. By understanding these causes and effects that create human action, a lawyer will be in legitimate position to both counsel and advocate.
Leff believes that a lawyer must focus his attention on actually social phenomenon and closely examine human behavior. Implicit in this theory is the necessity for a lawyer to relate to anyone seeking his guidance. A lawyer examines his client’s problem, from the restraints and privileges that the law and social dynamics have allowed. When a lawyer pays close attention to the actual phenomenon taking place in his client’s world, he is able to understand the structures and processes that are at work. Consequently, a lawyer uses this information to advocate for his client in the most efficient and logical manner.
What Do Lawyers Do?
Leff states that it is a lawyer’s job to “consider alternative future social snapshots and then attempt to encourage or prevent their actualization by facilitating or retarding particular human action.” Leff extends lawyering beyond that of a mere professionalism into the realm of social instrumentation. The lawyer, who can anticipate the future, can simultaneously use his knowledge of the law and of human interaction to help shape the future. Lawyers therefore, can influence their society in ways that the legislature cannot. Unlike a politician who is at all times susceptible to influence and pressure from constituents, a lawyer has the opportunity to think and act freely. Of course, Lawyers are constrained by alliances and relationships. Yet, lawyers have the power (though at times limited) to choose where and for whom they work.
Assuming Leff’s proposition that lawyers attempt to encourage or prevent the actualization of an anticipated future, there arises a question of why they act in this way.
An optimist would say that lawyers analyze future social occurrences because they desire to prepare for and remedy problems that may occur. Nevertheless, a cynic would take a different approach and say that the lawyer who can anticipate and influence the future has the power to benefit at the expense of others. No matter how one chooses to answer this question, it is the nature of lawyering and not the reason behind lawyering that Leff addresses. Lawyers, regardless of morality, use their knowledge of human interaction and social phenomenon to cause other humans to act in a certain way.
Leff and the Law School Curriculum
If the ability to think about the social and human interactions is essential for lawyers, then there is a difference between what is learned in the law school classroom and what is learned after taking the bar. The process of learning the law by solely reading judicial opinion’s does not offer students the full scope of the “transaction cost” of each case. The claims brought and decisions given on a particular case are influenced by underlining social factors, many of which are not evident by simply knowing the holding. A more effective law school curriculum is one that teaches its students how to analyze the social, economic and psychological influences that shape and constrains a person’s ability to have justice. The reading of judicial opinions is an important part of teaching students about the procedure and vocabulary of lawyers, but these opinions would be more effective if supplemented with social science.
By incorporating other disciplines into the law school curriculum, students will be better equipped to consider the “alternative future snapshots” that Leff reasons lawyers work to encourage or prevent. If a student focuses not only on the law, but also on how the law influences human action, the student acquires a more general knowledge of how the world works. Congressional intent on behalf of lawmakers is crucial into the formulation of statutes and laws. These Congressmen are influenced by the social dynamics of the world in which they exist. Law students, by studying these social dynamics, will be able to anticipate how and why a law was formed. This allows the student to begin to theorize how to use his knowledge to facilitate human action.
Conclusion
Andrew Leff’s characterization of the nature of lawyers perpetuates the notion that lawyers, in order to implement change, must have an immense awareness of the past and present. The knowledge that is essential to a lawyer, consist of more than knowing and learning the law. Consequently, a law school student should be exposed to more than judicial opinions. If the law school curriculum also consists of social science, the law school student will develop an understanding of human interaction that will be crucial to his serving as an advocate.
- Most of what we should deal with in this draft are problems of writing. Planning and structure went pretty well, although I think it's worth talking about the topic choice a little bit: in the end, it would be harder to tell the law school curriculum you are suggesting from the existent one than your text lets on. And there are some preparation matters that shouldn't have been
- skipped
- it's important in a paper about Art Leff's work to get his name right, for example. But I think we do best by concentration on execution: the text seems not to have been proofread, and the error rate is very high. "Underlining" for "underlying" occurs several times. Singular nouns are used where plurals are grammatically or idiomatically required. An adverb, like "actually" is used where an adjective like "actual" is called for. Sentence structure is unnecessarily complex. These problems need real solutions before we come to the larger-scale questions of how to make writing more persuasive or more challenging for the reader.
You are entitled to restrict access to your paper if you want to. But we all derive immense benefit from reading one another's work, and I hope you won't feel the need unless the subject matter is personal and its disclosure would be harmful or undesirable.
To restrict access to your paper simply delete the "#" on the next line:
# * Set ALLOWTOPICVIEW = TWikiAdminGroup, WilliamKing
Note: TWiki has strict formatting rules. Make sure you preserve the three spaces, asterisk, and extra space at the beginning of that line. If you wish to give access to any other users simply add them to the comma separated list |
|
|
WilliamKingFirstPaper 2 - 31 Mar 2009 - Main.IanSullivan
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
It is strongly recommended that you include your outline in the body of your essay by using the outline as section titles. The headings below are there to remind you how section and subsection titles are formatted. | | | Conclusion
Andrew Leff’s characterization of the nature of lawyers perpetuates the notion that lawyers, in order to implement change, must have an immense awareness of the past and present. The knowledge that is essential to a lawyer, consist of more than knowing and learning the law. Consequently, a law school student should be exposed to more than judicial opinions. If the law school curriculum also consists of social science, the law school student will develop an understanding of human interaction that will be crucial to his serving as an advocate. | |
<
< | | >
> |
- Most of what we should deal with in this draft are problems of writing. Planning and structure went pretty well, although I think it's worth talking about the topic choice a little bit: in the end, it would be harder to tell the law school curriculum you are suggesting from the existent one than your text lets on. And there are some preparation matters that shouldn't have been
- skipped
- it's important in a paper about Art Leff's work to get his name right, for example. But I think we do best by concentration on execution: the text seems not to have been proofread, and the error rate is very high. "Underlining" for "underlying" occurs several times. Singular nouns are used where plurals are grammatically or idiomatically required. An adverb, like "actually" is used where an adjective like "actual" is called for. Sentence structure is unnecessarily complex. These problems need real solutions before we come to the larger-scale questions of how to make writing more persuasive or more challenging for the reader.
| | |
|
|
|
WilliamKingFirstPaper 1 - 27 Feb 2009 - Main.WilliamKing
|
|
>
> |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
It is strongly recommended that you include your outline in the body of your essay by using the outline as section titles. The headings below are there to remind you how section and subsection titles are formatted.
Leff, Lawyering and Law School
-- By WilliamKing - 27 Feb 2009
Intro
In his conclusion of Swindling and Selling, Arthur Leff uses his research to describe how lawyers think and what lawyers do. Lawyering, according to Leff, involves thinking about the underlining social phenomenon of the world, as well as anticipating the future. If Leff’s assertions are true, then there is a divide between what lawyers do and what law school students are learning. The methodology of teaching the law solely through the reading of judicial opinions does not effectively reach Leff’s scope of lawyering. One way to remedy this divide is to incorporate social science into the legal curriculum.
How Do Lawyers Think?
According to Leff, lawyers, unlike economist who ignore the microreality of transaction by reasoning in the absence of transaction cost, find importance within transaction cost. Leff states that it is the “actual behavior of actual people in actual transactions that is of particular interest” for lawyers. It is essential for a lawyer to examine the underlining social forces at work between the engaged parties. Lawyers need to be equipped with the knowledge of why person A committed act X and furthermore what influences acts Z and W had on A, prior to the commencing of X. By understanding these causes and effects that create human action, a lawyer will be in legitimate position to both counsel and advocate.
Leff believes that a lawyer must focus his attention on actually social phenomenon and closely examine human behavior. Implicit in this theory is the necessity for a lawyer to relate to anyone seeking his guidance. A lawyer examines his client’s problem, from the restraints and privileges that the law and social dynamics have allowed. When a lawyer pays close attention to the actual phenomenon taking place in his client’s world, he is able to understand the structures and processes that are at work. Consequently, a lawyer uses this information to advocate for his client in the most efficient and logical manner.
What Do Lawyers Do?
Leff states that it is a lawyer’s job to “consider alternative future social snapshots and then attempt to encourage or prevent their actualization by facilitating or retarding particular human action.” Leff extends lawyering beyond that of a mere professionalism into the realm of social instrumentation. The lawyer, who can anticipate the future, can simultaneously use his knowledge of the law and of human interaction to help shape the future. Lawyers therefore, can influence their society in ways that the legislature cannot. Unlike a politician who is at all times susceptible to influence and pressure from constituents, a lawyer has the opportunity to think and act freely. Of course, Lawyers are constrained by alliances and relationships. Yet, lawyers have the power (though at times limited) to choose where and for whom they work.
Assuming Leff’s proposition that lawyers attempt to encourage or prevent the actualization of an anticipated future, there arises a question of why they act in this way.
An optimist would say that lawyers analyze future social occurrences because they desire to prepare for and remedy problems that may occur. Nevertheless, a cynic would take a different approach and say that the lawyer who can anticipate and influence the future has the power to benefit at the expense of others. No matter how one chooses to answer this question, it is the nature of lawyering and not the reason behind lawyering that Leff addresses. Lawyers, regardless of morality, use their knowledge of human interaction and social phenomenon to cause other humans to act in a certain way.
Leff and the Law School Curriculum
If the ability to think about the social and human interactions is essential for lawyers, then there is a difference between what is learned in the law school classroom and what is learned after taking the bar. The process of learning the law by solely reading judicial opinion’s does not offer students the full scope of the “transaction cost” of each case. The claims brought and decisions given on a particular case are influenced by underlining social factors, many of which are not evident by simply knowing the holding. A more effective law school curriculum is one that teaches its students how to analyze the social, economic and psychological influences that shape and constrains a person’s ability to have justice. The reading of judicial opinions is an important part of teaching students about the procedure and vocabulary of lawyers, but these opinions would be more effective if supplemented with social science.
By incorporating other disciplines into the law school curriculum, students will be better equipped to consider the “alternative future snapshots” that Leff reasons lawyers work to encourage or prevent. If a student focuses not only on the law, but also on how the law influences human action, the student acquires a more general knowledge of how the world works. Congressional intent on behalf of lawmakers is crucial into the formulation of statutes and laws. These Congressmen are influenced by the social dynamics of the world in which they exist. Law students, by studying these social dynamics, will be able to anticipate how and why a law was formed. This allows the student to begin to theorize how to use his knowledge to facilitate human action.
Conclusion
Andrew Leff’s characterization of the nature of lawyers perpetuates the notion that lawyers, in order to implement change, must have an immense awareness of the past and present. The knowledge that is essential to a lawyer, consist of more than knowing and learning the law. Consequently, a law school student should be exposed to more than judicial opinions. If the law school curriculum also consists of social science, the law school student will develop an understanding of human interaction that will be crucial to his serving as an advocate.
You are entitled to restrict access to your paper if you want to. But we all derive immense benefit from reading one another's work, and I hope you won't feel the need unless the subject matter is personal and its disclosure would be harmful or undesirable.
To restrict access to your paper simply delete the "#" on the next line:
# * Set ALLOWTOPICVIEW = TWikiAdminGroup, WilliamKing
Note: TWiki has strict formatting rules. Make sure you preserve the three spaces, asterisk, and extra space at the beginning of that line. If you wish to give access to any other users simply add them to the comma separated list |
|
|
|
|
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform.
All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
All material marked as authored by Eben Moglen is available under the license terms CC-BY-SA version 4.
|
|