Law & Society Blog

If you pick up an American book on legal reasoning, you’ll find more “reasoning” in it than “legal.” There doesn’t seem to be a perception that there is anything genuinely legal about reasoning in the law (except perhaps following the local court rules for submissions). You will find discussions of rhetoric and persuasive arguments, how to organize material, and reminders on punctuation. The only legal part these legal-reasoning books is the section on such rules as IRAC or CRAC (”Issue-Rule-Argument-Conclusion” and “Conclusion-Rule-Analysis-Cases”), and it is usually shorter than the section on punctuation.
I am not interested here in a critique of American legal-reasoning books. But rather in the fact that the message is the same in all the ones I’ve seen: There is nothing special about legal reasoning. Law supplies the facts, but the methodology is supplied by rhetorik, advertising, semantics and grammar.
To my mind, it’s a form of outsourcing. Rather than use a method specific to the law, we use someone else’s method. And it is not the only thing we outsource, either. If we ask about the meaning of law, we turn to sociologist on the one hand, or more likely today, economists. If we want to know what changes to make to the law, or why, we ask economists. If we want to know how to conduct ourselves in court, we turn to psychologists. And if we want the manipulate the fabric of the law, the rules, we turn to linguists. The only thing no one can take from us is the mastery over legal procedure. But the substance of the law we have outsourced.

License

This work is published under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 2.5 License.