Lawyers are taught logic


If there is one thing lawyers can do, it is litigation. They mean. It is often said that lawyers are typically uncritically convinced of themselves and their abilities and that this leads to a certain disdain that lawyers have towards other people. They are gladly ostracized as "half-gods in black". I would say yes: there are - as so often - sone and such.

In fact, there is one thing that annoys me fundamentally about my colleagues and that is their overestimation of themselves when it comes to their understanding of a process.

Just because lawyers deal with litigation and procedural rules day-to-day does you mean they have a special understanding of litigation. In my opinion, the truth looks very different:

Lawyers typically think strictly iteratively: first one thing happens, then the next, and finally the last. That is how we were taught. We are all conditioned when we have completed our legal training at a German university. The (apparently) deductive logic of a legal argument (“It has to be exactly the same and not different, because…”) and an almost manic fixation on causalities (albeit in different forms) impregnates against a lot - often against good solutions.

In fact, lawyers don't know much about litigation; at least not when it comes to a scientific understanding of processes. Ask a lawyer in your circle of friends about Adam's equity theory or about Vroom's valence-instrumentality-expectation theory. The chances that they will get questioning looks are high (it may be different if the person has completed training in mediation).

All of this is deplorable because it leads lawyers to give their clients stones instead of bread.

The criticism is not new either: in 2006 the legal scholar Alexander Somek dealt with it in an extremely recommendable book (Somek, Legal Knowledge, Suhrkamp). However, there was no big discussion. This post in the Faz remains unchanged.