Sitting in on a local court sessission, one gets to see the difference between a laywer and true lawyer. When listening to a lawyer, you often find yourself substituting words for those with less complex meanings. The need to wait for the subsequent sentence in order to get the meaning of the prior simply because certain phrases were too over the top, also arises. At one instance the Judge twitches in an unspoken bid to show lack of content in the lawyer's arguments. A true lawyer on the other hand expresses facts without stress on words that may mislead the court. His affluence on subject matter is commendeable. He does not need to hide behind a ton of jargon, some of which may be made up, to show his expertise. I bet this kind of lawyer make the judges' work alot easier.
The content of the submissions should be more regarded by the advocate than the complexity of his submissions. Noted by Lord Chesterfield. So pleasing the audience should in no way seek to excuse the modern advocate who sometimes seems to believe that only a well polished suit and thorough legal jargon cannot stand without support. Jargon will only fascinate the crowd. Sometimes even confuse it. The legal content however, is the backbone of practicing law.
No comments:
Post a Comment