Law Schools—But Not All Lawyers—Get Legal Analysis Right

Lawyers on LinkedIn attack law schools for not teaching students the practical skills necessary to be a “real” lawyer.

But on one skill, it’s the law schools getting it right, and, too often, the “real” lawyers getting it wrong:

👉 The skill is legal analysis.

Consider this 4-sentence “legal analysis” from one “real” lawyer’s brief in support of a motion for summary judgment:

1- The Court should grant D’s motion for summary judgment (MSJ).

2- To survive an MSJ . . . [explanation of legal standard w/ cites.]

3- P here fails to adduce sufficient proof to survive D’s MSJ. See [three cases with parentheticals quoting their holdings].

4- D is thus entitled to summary judgment on P’s claims.
___

❌ That is NOT legal analysis, and the “real” lawyer who wrote it needs to revisit what law school teach.

🔷 To “analyze” means:

(1) to describe the facts of past court cases,

(2) to compare the facts from your case to the facts of those past cases,

-and-

(3) to reason why your case is therefore similar or different from those past cases.

👉 It is only after you have completed all 3 steps that you’re ready to wrap up with a conclusion that the 3 past cases should persuade your Court to rule for your client.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

💌 Amanda

#LegalWriting
#Lawyers
#LawStudents