How lawyers of both parties present their arguments and reasoning?

How lawyers of both parties present their arguments and reasoning?

Lawyers base their arguments on rules, analogies, policies, principles, and customs. Rule-based reasoning relies on the use of syllogisms, or arguments based on formal logic. A syllogism consists of a major premise, a minor premise, and a conclusion.

What is it called when lawyers argue?

Oral arguments are spoken presentations to a judge or appellate court by a lawyer (or parties when representing themselves) of the legal reasons why they should prevail.

Can a lawyer criticize a judge?

7 This freedom extends to lawyers. 8 At the heart of the First Amendment is the freedom to engage in vigorous public debate, and the Constitution guarantees that citizens, including lawyers, have the right to criticize public officials, including judges.

What are the differences between case law and case study in respect to legal reasoning?

A case study is a research method involving an up-close, in-depth, and detailed examination of a subject of study (the case), as well as its related contextual conditions. While, Case law is a set of past rulings by tribunals that meet their respective jurisdictions’ rules to be cited as precedent .

How do you explain legal reasoning in a case?

Legal reasoning in the case of a court’s ruling is found in the ‘Discussion or Analysis’ section of the judicial ruling. It is here that the court gives reason for its legal ruling, and it helps other courts, lawyers and judges to use and follow the ruling in subsequent proceedings.

What is an oral argument in law?

Oral argument is your chance to further explain to the appellate court in person the arguments that you made in your brief. You can clarify the points you made in your brief, tell the appellate court what you think is most important about your arguments, and answer questions from the appellate court judges.

Can we criticize Supreme Court?

As an institution of governance it must be open to public scrutiny and public criticism,” he said. “We have always accepted that the decisions of courts can be criticised, including in language which may be impolite. So the decisions can be criticised.

Why can’t the opposing lawyer argue both sides of a case?

Because the only arguments that are relevant would be the arguments based on the law and the facts of each individual case. In other words it would not be relevant for the opposing lawyer to argue that this lawyer frequently argues both sides of the case. As long as he is not doing so in this one specific case.

Is it unethical to argue both sides of an issue?

Mr. A Mr. A Not only would it not be unethical to argue both sides of the issue, if the lawyer argued both sides of the issue and won on both sides, this would be proof that the lawyer is an excellent lawyer. Because the victory would be based on the lawyers skills and not on whether the law leans one way or the other.

Can a lawyer represent two clients at the same time?

A lawyer is required to represent each one of his clients zealously. If this means the lawyer has to argue both sides of an issue, as long as there is no conflict of interest between his two clients, then the lawyer must do so. Our system is an adversarial system.

Is it ethical to have two attorneys in the same firm?

It is not ethical for two attorneys in the same firm to represent opposing parties without the written consent of both parties to waive the obvious conflict of interest. I would suggest you find yourself another attorney. * This will flag comments for moderators to take action.