I came to law through two routes: the first was the philosophical one via my political philosophy course. Why do people obey laws? The balance between the sovereign and people. What is the rule of law? Should law enforce morality etc etc? And I still find that fascinating. Plus I like understanding the way the laws of a country reflect how that country sees power, how it reflects a country's culture (and shapes it) and how its people view themselves.
And the other route was the practical: the reason why I became - after my stint in government - a litigator: the fact that my legal skills help me sort out problems, which I find very interesting and satisfying. Law is like plumbing for the middle classes. It's a craft, a trade, which helps you resolve an issue. It helps you cut through to the heart of matters. I also find it quite creative - but that probably reflects my approach to it. I practise law but do not consider myself to be a lawyer in the sense that it is only part of what I am, professionally and personally. Some people's identity can be very defined by their profession.
The actual ins and outs of this or that Act mean very little to me, to be honest.
When I was young I wanted to be an investigative journalist and in a strange sort of way that is what I have been doing all these years: investigating and writing about what I find. Investigation is an art as much as a science - though I agree with @Tim B that there is a lot of logic - but there is also a great deal of emotional intelligence and instinct and judgment involved in assessing people and in getting a sense about what is going on between the lines.
Very interesting, Mrs Free, especially the last bit. Along with emotional intelligence one needs a very good understanding of people, especially the type of people one is investigating, otherwise it is too easy to miss what is really going on, or has gone on in the case of a lawyer, I guess.
Once, at a conference, I sat down with a couple of Dutch colleagues discussing this very point and we hammered out what we called the the Theory of The Anchored Narrative. Amazingly in the morning when we were again sober we could all remember it and even more amazingly it still made sense. One of the Cloggies said he was going to write a paper on it, I have no idea if he ever did, but one day, over a bottle of something nice, I'll bore you with it.
Back in the late 60s, they had something called 'articled' (?) where you work for an attorney firm and then take the exam. I was going to work for the firm of a friend of my father in Yorkshire. At the last minute I got a job offer (I was 17) from IBM in London. Dales vs London at 17? No brainer. IBM it was.
Today that firm is still my family's UK attorney, and my daughter (who works in the legal profession) swears I'm the best cross-examiner she's ever met. When she was younger and got into trouble or didn't want to talk about a boyfriend, she knew when I sat down with her that I would get to the truth eventually.
There's a cross-over between I.T. and the law - they're both based on logic and deduction.
Some of the very best lawyers, Denning and MacKay of Clashfern, had first degrees in pure mathematics so you may be on to something. If I enjoy one aspect of my job it is probably cross. It is so rarely that you get to be that rude to someone in the real world.
My daughter was accused of cheating in High School during an exam. I asked to see the evidence and it simply didn't make sense.
I demanded a meeting with the principal, the teacher making the allegation, and student affairs folks. After 2 hours they asked to adjourn the meeting. The next day the principal called me and said "I think we dropped the ball on this one.". A letter of apology was put in her file and her test score was reinstated.
The best part is when you see in the eyes of the person you're questioning that they suddenly realize you're closing in on the truth.
It's a useful skill to have even in the real world.
Watching folks squirm when they suddenly 'get' where your questioning is going at their expense is truly great.
Comments
Once, at a conference, I sat down with a couple of Dutch colleagues discussing this very point and we hammered out what we called the the Theory of The Anchored Narrative. Amazingly in the morning when we were again sober we could all remember it and even more amazingly it still made sense. One of the Cloggies said he was going to write a paper on it, I have no idea if he ever did, but one day, over a bottle of something nice, I'll bore you with it.
I demanded a meeting with the principal, the teacher making the allegation, and student affairs folks. After 2 hours they asked to adjourn the meeting. The next day the principal called me and said "I think we dropped the ball on this one.". A letter of apology was put in her file and her test score was reinstated.
The best part is when you see in the eyes of the person you're questioning that they suddenly realize you're closing in on the truth.
It's a useful skill to have even in the real world.
Watching folks squirm when they suddenly 'get' where your questioning is going at their expense is truly great.