Skip to main content

Is it true that good lawyers interpret the law and great lawyers change the law?

New York, NY |

Is it true that good lawyers interpret the law and great lawyers change the law?

Attorney Answers 3

Posted

Interesting question. IMHO The best input that lawyers have into the law is by being active in the legislative process and fighting for the rights of victims when encroachments are made into those rights.

Mark as helpful

3 lawyers agree

Posted

Not necessarily. That's kind of a catchy phrase and a half-truth, but lawyers aren't legislators or judges. They don't have the power to "change" the law, only to suggest how it should be applied to certain facts. Sometimes, as your motto suggests, a lawyer can argue for a creative reinterpretation of case law to facts, perhaps this is what you mean by changing the law.

Yes, creativity and "thinking outside the box" to come up with novel arguments is good. But, in my experience, what's better is the lawyer who persuasively lays out the FACTS and makes complicated situations understandable to a judge, jury or government agency. After all, the decisionmakers often know (or think they know) the statute and case law, but they know nothing about the facts of a certain situation or how the law should be applied to those fact patterns. That's what a great lawyer does, IMO, and he does it by calling attention to the facts, not his dazzling creativity in "changing the law".

You're not supposed to be "changing the law" and peacocking around (this actually makes the decisionmakers nervous about following your lead). It's not about the lawyer, it's about the client and his facts. Decisionmakers are most comfortable applying the law as it's been applied before, not "changing it" (and making themselves exposed to appellate reversal).

So, on the whole, I'd disagree, I guess.

This answer is provided under the Avvo.com “Terms and Conditions of Use” (“ToU”), particularly ¶9 which states that any information provided is not intended as legal advice or to create an attorney-client relationship between you and me or any other attorney. Such information is intended for general informational purposes only and should be used only as a starting point for addressing your legal issues. In particular, my answers and those of others are not a substitute for an in-person or telephone consultation with an attorney licensed to practice in your jurisdiction about your specific legal issue, and you should not rely solely upon Legal Information you obtain from this website or other resources which may be linked to an answer for informational purposes. You understand that questions and answers or other postings to the Site are not confidential and are not subject to attorney-client privilege. The full Avvo ToU are set forth at http://www.avvo.com/support/terms . In addition, while similar legal principles often apply in many states, I am only licensed to practice in the State of New York and Federal Courts. Any general information I provide about non-New York laws should be checked with an attorney licensed to practice in your State. Lastly, New York State Court rules (22 NYCRR Part 1200, Rule 7.1) also require me to inform you that my answers and attorney profile posted on the Avvo.com site may be considered "attorney advertising" and that "prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome".

Mark as helpful

2 lawyers agree

1 comment

Andrew Lawrence Weitz

Andrew Lawrence Weitz

Posted

well said. the maxim is almost a cry for jury nullification. in other words, great lawyers get juries to ignore precedent and legislate from the jury box.

Posted

What i s meant by "interpret" ?
If a good lawyer advocates an interpretation of a law in such a way that it has not been applied before, successfuly, is that a "change in the law" and does that not mean that a good lawyer is also a great lawyer ?
If a lawyer seeks the interpretation of a law that allows a beneficial application for a particular client but is "bad" for society as a whole, what is so "great" about that ?
Doesn't "changing the law" always require an element of interpretation ?
Final thought: Isn't any lawyer who zealously advocates a client's position or rights, even under the existing law without necessarily changing it, a great lawyer.
Ah, philosophy of law

Mark as helpful