Aspie = good lawyer?
I often look up and memorise laws for fun, and I think it's interesting. But when you think about the way law operates, it seems very ideal for the way Aspies think, because it's all about following exactly what the laws say and being very logical about it, and of course using any technicality in the law to your advantage.
I dunno about you, but to me this mirrors the way Aspies naturally think.
This is just a passing thought really, but do you think Aspies could make good lawyers for this reason?
There's two ways to look at this.
An aspie lawyer might do well dealing with the fine details of law. Certainly there are firms that hire people skilled at debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but such people tend to make poor litigators.
In litigation, much of it is straightforward, common sense, black and white. Fancy legal reasoning won't apply or be appreciated because the law is meant to preserve order, not allow people avenues to define new rights or privileges the law would otherwise not allow.
Anyone can give legal advice, but your clients need to know that the real consequences of their choices would likely be. A lawyer who is not in touch with real life can give lousy advice and complicate the lives of his client. This happens way too often as it is.
Likewise, much of the practice of law is monotony and pressure to produce for pay. This can be very stressful and it's why many NT lawyers burn out and quit the profession.
So, unless an aspie was extremely focused on the whole practice of law, I don't know how happy they'd be in doing it. The few elements that are liked may not outweigh all the elements that are despised.
I have a law degree, but I chose not to practice because the actual practice of law is repulsive to me. At every opportunity to work assisting a lawyer, while I found the work interesting, the monotony of it bored me to death...never mind the pressure to not make an error that could cost our client the case.
An aspie lawyer might do well dealing with the fine details of law. Certainly there are firms that hire people skilled at debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but such people tend to make poor litigators.
In litigation, much of it is straightforward, common sense, black and white. Fancy legal reasoning won't apply or be appreciated because the law is meant to preserve order, not allow people avenues to define new rights or privileges the law would otherwise not allow.
Anyone can give legal advice, but your clients need to know that the real consequences of their choices would likely be. A lawyer who is not in touch with real life can give lousy advice and complicate the lives of his client. This happens way too often as it is.
Likewise, much of the practice of law is monotony and pressure to produce for pay. This can be very stressful and it's why many NT lawyers burn out and quit the profession.
So, unless an aspie was extremely focused on the whole practice of law, I don't know how happy they'd be in doing it. The few elements that are liked may not outweigh all the elements that are despised.
I have a law degree, but I chose not to practice because the actual practice of law is repulsive to me. At every opportunity to work assisting a lawyer, while I found the work interesting, the monotony of it bored me to death...never mind the pressure to not make an error that could cost our client the case.
Hmm, a lot of things depend on the type of law you're in though, there's big differences between the work of different types of lawyers.
As for being focused on doing the same thing all the time... I'd have thought that this would be another advantage of being an Aspie. We're great at that.
I didn't mean to say fancy legal reasoning is good or anything, but from what I know (correct me if I'm wrong here, though), when it comes to real life cases, it tends to play a part. But I do think reading and applying, in detail, something black and white like a law, also plays to our strengths. As you mentioned, attention to detail.
Of course, as you said, keeping the real world in mind is important.
I think Erisad makes a very good point, though
Ichinin
Veteran
Joined: 3 Apr 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,653
Location: A cold place with lots of blondes.
Just as has been explained:
An aspie with special interest in Law could be an awesome lawyer, as well as a bad one if he/she didnt have the social know how to "work" the law. Same goes for a NT; Could be the greatest people reader ever, but without the capacity to hold more than 3 § in their head, they would suck too.
Its all up to the individual.
_________________
"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring" (Carl Sagan)
Lawyer may not be a good fit but you could look into being a paralegal where you do not meet with clients. The ideal would consist of doing legal research and filling in the forms and verifying they are correct. A good grasp of the court rules would also help to keep the lawyer in line too.
The biggest thing is knowing the court rules (which if they change, give well enough advance notice to incorporate the change) and knowing how our legal system works and how previous rulings fit into the current research subject.
Realize that most lawyers are simply there to make sure the correct filing goes to the correct place and to do the actual litigation if necessary. Most of the real legal work is done by para-legals and law clerks.
There are a lot of different jobs in the legal field - some may be a good fit, some aren't. It can be awesome if you find work involving your special interest but that can be hard to find.
I have a law degree but I've had a terrible time finding work with it as many law jobs for graduates involve a lot of work with clients or require many hours of very stressful work. I'm currently trying to find something involving legal research or writing, but I regret having the degree in the first place.
An aspie lawyer might do well dealing with the fine details of law. Certainly there are firms that hire people skilled at debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but such people tend to make poor litigators.
In litigation, much of it is straightforward, common sense, black and white. Fancy legal reasoning won't apply or be appreciated because the law is meant to preserve order, not allow people avenues to define new rights or privileges the law would otherwise not allow.
In fairness, I think that depends on the level of litigation. At the local court level, judges are going to be very restrained. But litigating before Appellate benches is a different thing altogether.
Courts create new law every day, that is how the Common Law has come into existence, and it is the basis on which Courts can resolve disputes upon which the law has, to date, been silent.
Likewise, much of the practice of law is monotony and pressure to produce for pay. This can be very stressful and it's why many NT lawyers burn out and quit the profession.
So, unless an aspie was extremely focused on the whole practice of law, I don't know how happy they'd be in doing it. The few elements that are liked may not outweigh all the elements that are despised.
I have a law degree, but I chose not to practice because the actual practice of law is repulsive to me. At every opportunity to work assisting a lawyer, while I found the work interesting, the monotony of it bored me to death...never mind the pressure to not make an error that could cost our client the case.
My experience was that I only spent about 25% of my time practicing law (which I enjoyed tremendously), and the rest of my time was split between trying to drum up business, and to collect deliquent accounts (which I loathed).
If I had enough business to employ someone to promote my business and another to make sure my fees got collected, I would have been more content!
_________________
--James
Doesn't matter how well you've memorized the statutes, or how reasonable your argument, you have to be able to build each case from the ground up, fitting it into that immense puzzle of interpretation and precedent, without missing a trick. Once all that complicated Executive Function work is done, you have to go into a room full of people, some of whom are there for the express purpose of making you look like an idiot and proving that you're a bumbling imbecile. In order to counter that attempt, you have to be able to think fast on your feet while being watched by both people who are actively opposing your every move, but an unknown number of strangers as well.
You must then plead your case convincingly to an authority figure who feels that he is every bit as important and possibly more powerful than God almighty. This authority figure can cut you off in mid sentence, refuse to listen to your argument, or bar you from presenting proof to support it. Your every move and facial expression may be interpreted by this authority figure, prejudicing their opinion of your argument, and should you ever display anything that could be interpreted as insolence or hostility, even by muttering under your breath, you could be fined or jailed.
I think someone with AS might be okay doing the clerical side of law in the office, but I don't see them functioning well in open court.
AngelRho
Veteran
Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile
There are all kinds of different areas of law, though. Many lawyers, even if they aren't "certified" in a specific area, will only take certain types of cases. MOST legal cases are in the areas of family law, not to mention bankruptcy and Social Security Administration. Criminal law and litigation is a whole different animal.
So if you're going into some of the less dramatic areas of law, being an aspie might give you an edge. If you think you might like getting into litigation, start out by taking justice court cases (traffic tickets, domestic violence, etc.). Your typical JP is an elected official with no formal legal training. They are good at relating to REAL people, so they tend to side with the accuser. Any defendant who goes before a JP and brings a lawyer has a better chance of fighting and winning. But then again, a lot of accusers and defendants that end up in JC are idiots that just want to use the court to straighten out their relational/marital issues, and JC is not the proper place for this. On the other hand, it's a great place if you want a quick and quiet wedding ceremony--you know, the kind that involves shotguns, and many a courthouse janitor has signed as a witness to weddings...
My wife is a bankruptcy paralegal, so I get to hear all kinds of bizarre stories. Bankruptcy is a kind of dark, secret side of law, and it's highly procedural. So if you don't think you could handle being an actual lawyer in federal bankruptcy court, hire yourself out as a bankruptcy preparer. My wife has gotten so good at this she actually goes to 1041 hearings and has other lawyers competing to steal her away from her employer!
If you're interested in law, seriously, study to be a paralegal (you don't really need a degree for this, any high school student can do it, but it helps). You get a taste of what it's like to be a lawyer without all the responsibilities. But one thing you'll find out is why there are so many lawyers in politics!
leejosepho
Veteran
Joined: 14 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,011
Location: 200 miles south of Little Rock
I do not know the history of "the Common Law" or whatever, but no, courts do not "create new law every day". Some judges occasionally presume to try to do that by making certain rulings or whatever, but only Congress can actually make laws.
_________________
I began looking for someone like me when I was five ...
My search ended at 59 ... right here on WrongPlanet.
==================================
Law is not merely statute. Law is the entire corpus of Constitution, statute, judicial precedent and private rights. To focus on only one component is to ignore the much larger body of rules that exist to resolve disputes.
Legislatures are the primarly creators of statutes (although they also authorize government to create subordinate legislation through regulation), and where statutes and the Common Law are in conflict, statute prevails. The primacy clearly lies with the legislature, but that primacy is no exclusive.
Leaving aside determinations of fact, which can only take place at the trial level, every dispute between parties that goes on to the appellate level must, perforce, turn on a question of law. And every time that a Court makes a decision on a question of law, it creates new law. When a Court determines what the words of a statute mean, or how they apply to a particular set of facts, the Court makes new law, because that judgement will guide lawyers who advise their clients about their risks and their rights in the future. When the Supreme Court attempts to reconcile contradictory judgements from lower courts, it creates new law.
This has been the fundamental nature of the Common Law for over 800 years, and which has formed the foundation of the legal system that exists at the federal level and in 49 of 50 state jurisdictions.
_________________
--James
