What Are Legal Arguments?
Legal Arguments: A Legal Process Essential
As you begin preparing for your case, whether it’s in the courtroom or just about to head to litigation, you will become intimately familiar with legal arguments, making it vital to understand their purpose in the context of your matter.
A legal argument is essentially a set of statements intended to convince a reader or listener that a specific point of view is the correct one. Arguments can be presented both verbally in the courtroom and in writing through legal documents like pleadings, briefs, and motions. As part of presenting an effective legal argument, an attorney may use inductive reasoning, deductive reasoning, or a combination of both.
Induction involves taking what is known and then applying this to a previously unknown situation to come to anew conclusion. For example, if a person has been told that smoking is bad for one’s health, after years of smoking, he or she may find other health problems and realize this is the result of smoking. The person can then apply the knowledge that "smoking is bad" to the new situation of having health problems.
Deduction, on the other hand, starts from a generalization and draws conclusions on a case-by-case basis. Following the example above , the person may discover while at the hospital – regardless of his or her cough and wheezing – that their lungs are healthy because they’ve quit smoking. The person goes back to the generalization and sees that it is only nearly all smokers that develop health problems.
Through the use of applicable legal theories and factual background, a strong argument seeks to convince the reader or listener that the contention put forward in the argument is the correct one. Effective arguments also anticipate arguments made by the other party and address these points throughout.
In court, attorneys use a legal argument to persuade a judge to rule in one way or the other in the case being considered. This is done through written pleadings or oral arguments made in court. Outside of the courtroom, lawyers argue cases through written motions, discovery, and settlement negotiations. These arguments will assist them throughout the process to determine whether or not a case will proceed to trial.
There are several types of legal arguments commonly used throughout the legal process:
Legal arguments are vital during various phases of a matter and throughout the stages of a case. An experienced attorney will spend time preparing these arguments during his or her efforts to arrive at the best possible outcome in your case.
The Components of a Legal Argument
A carefully constructed legal argument consists of an overarching organizational scheme and an overarching theme for the argument. Do not dive into the details until you’ve sat down and sketched out your opening and closing statements. Before you write your argument, determine the structure and the theme of the argument that you wish to convey.
Every legal argument must provide the following essential components:
• Claim: This is your position, thesis or viewpoint on the issue at hand. The claim is important at the beginning and at the end; however, it should not consume an entire section of your argument.
• Evidence: Your evidence consists of the facts of your case, documents that support your position, case law, statute citations, depositions, correspondence and technical documentation. Document and organize every piece of evidence you plan to use at trial so that you know where to find it when you need it.
• Reasoning: Reasoning is what convinces the other party of your claim or position. This is done by picking apart the "opponent’s" argument. As you prepare your argument, anticipate the other side’s strongest arguments and be prepared to systematically refute each point they might make.
• Conclusion: If you don’t draw up a conclusion and get the jury to agree with your position in the end, all that you did before then was a waste of time. Don’t think of conclusions as just a rehashing of what you already told the jury in the beginning; rather, it is a way to pull the reader back in and remind them of the points you made in the beginning.
Common Types of Legal Arguments
In legal writing, a compelling argument is one that is not necessarily meant to persuade. In fact, the best arguments in legal writing are useful, effective, and sufficient reasons to find for your client. They are the reasons – including the law, the public policy, the judicial policy, and the policy against unreasonable results – that can convince a judge that your resolution of the law matches a fair solution.
Legal arguments fall into three categories: statutory, case law, and constitutional. Statutory argument uses the rules of statutory interpretation to make a case for a client. Here, the judge must interpret and apply a statute or regulation. The argument generally breaks down into rules of construction that ask the judge to interpret the statute on its face or to examine its context. Oftentimes a court will also look at legislative intent, which is inferred from legislative history, bill files and other guides. Here’s an easy example: the IRS has a statute that says that any taxpayer can file their returns by mail or by fax. The IRS audit of my client was based on a fax that was dated 22 days after the tax deadline but was actually received 18 days before. My legal argument is that the tax return was timely filed. I’m a good lawyer, so I’m preparing to show how the statute says that a return is considered timely filed if it is postmarked on the last day of the business day, even if it is received after the deadline. I’m also going to argue that the IRS’s return date stamp shows that it was in the office more than a week before the deadline, and so my client’s return was timely filed by fax.
Case law argument is the type of argument you make when the court is required to examine a case (or cases) similar to yours to see what the courts have decided. A case law argument is most often made when courts have extended constitutional protections to areas that touch your case – such as a right to counsel during a temporary detainment, the right of a child to be cross-examined in a sex abuse trial, or a defendant’s right to refuse medication that will alter his or her consciousness during a trial. Reasonable judges can easily disagree about what the Constitution allows, however, and so when you are making an argument based on case law, you should be able to cite the specific reasons your judge should be reasonable and agree with your clients request for relief or rights.
Finally, constitutional argument is an argument about the Constitution. As with every other type of law, the Constitution requires explanations – why it protects a certain right, what Congress intended to do with its laws, and all those other rules of statutory construction. But on top of those rules, the Constitution imposes two things on lawyers: a reasonable person must conclude that this is the law; and that the competing rights of the Constitution require a balance. Order of merit is a good way to analyze the merits of your argument in light of the existing law by starting with the one that is most important first, and then putting everything else into order of importance in compliance with the Constitution and the Constitution’s reasonableness mandate.
Building a Logical Legal Argument
The next stage of an effective legal argument is logical argumentation. It’s one thing to understand the law and general context of the motion – it’s another to identify the strength of the various existing facts which are associated with the claims of the motion and arguments you wish to make. The initial task is to pull all of these bits of evidence together, and to assemble them in such a way that they support your position when viewed as a whole. At this stage, no points are discarded – even those which are weak. While these arguments may not end up forming the final legal argument, they still have uses; they can help identify weaknesses in the strongest points, or even be used to undermine an opponent’s legal argument. Point out their flaws and inconsistencies and follow that with a point noting these issues as a concern in the legal argument. Once you’ve managed to amass a collection of points, the next step is to work out a systematic structure to them. For motions, points are progressively built around a central issue, which often concerns a section of law which supports the rightness of the motion. Once this core point or points have been established, alternate points will be raised in such a way that they both reinforce the initial central issue and build up to it – stacking on strength after strength. When considering how to arrange your points, it’s always important to consider counterarguments. Current law is never infallible – if it were, there would be no need to argue them at all , motions would simply pass with no upcoming court case. As your points are made, consider the strengths of the counterarguments; if they are independent points, do they independently undermine any central points? If possible, include counterarguments in your own motion; not as a concession that any of your points are weak, but pointing out where the motion deals with those counterarguments. If your points address any possible objections, your argument becomes more rounded – harder to challenge, but also easier to read. A point or two of sufficient strength laid out in a concise manner means that the problem raised by counterargument isn’t as important as the counterpoint, and shows the court that you have anticipated these challenges from the opposing side. The structural arrangement of your legal argument is crucial to its success. Remember that the first read through of any legal argument is likely to be by a judge who has far too many motions in front of them. Clarity is crucial. To make sure your legal argument is as clear as possible, follow this simple structure: This structure is not a hard and fast rule; it’s a guide to ensure that your legal argument is as clear as possible. I strongly recommend following it, even in older motions where it’s not strictly necessary. Résumés, business, personal and other such letters all follow a similar structure. This helps to make writing style consistent – and makes a legal argument all the clearer. For writing style tips, see my article on Legal Arguments and Sentence Structure.
Legal Arguments to Avoid
There are a few common pitfalls that appear in written legal arguments that can weaken an otherwise solid argument. The first is overreliance on weak or inapposite precedents. Many lawyers are raised with the notion that you are only as good as your last case. This is true enough if you are a litigator, but as a motion lawyer, precedents are the name of the game, and to be well-rounded, you must know how to read cases and untie knots in arguments. Do not cite an opinion that does not stand for the proposition you want it to stand for. You can find out on Google Scholar or Casemaker or any other reputable legal data services, whether the case is still good law.
Other pitfalls are skipping over relevant law or trying to re-write it, laying down an unsupported claim, engaging in hyperbole and histrionics, and omitting or de-emphasizing key facts that may make the case for the other side. A concluding section rebutting the anticipated bad facts and opposing counsel’s tactics is helpful in most cases. Also, be sure to include a proposed order or alternative proposed order. Finally, proofread for typos – a typographical error could harm your professional reputation.
Legal Argument Analysis Example
One example of a persuasive legal argument can be found in the concurring opinion of Justice Hugo Black, "Concurring Opinion: "Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660 (1962)." Here, Justice Black is writing to express his agreement with the judgement of the Court, but he writes additionally to express his own reasoning. He forms his argument in 5 parts.
By mentioning the definition of the word "status" he is suggesting that it is a broad and subjective word. He is drawing the line between what is a status and what is the act of an individual. The use of the word "diagnosable" is important, because it may draw a line for those who have a terminal illness – for instance, if a person is diagnosed with lung cancer (the status), it would be the act of smoking tobacco.
The concurring opinion, while generally outlining the argument, does also bring it into a specific case. The highlight of this passage is the word "solitary." The author is making the argument that a sin or bad act should never be punished with something like solitary confinement. It is a similar argument to those found in the Eighth Amendment. This section also draws a line between actions of the state and moral dilemmas that lie in religion.
This section of the argument appeals to America as a nation that finds solace in independence. It makes the argument that a person should not be punished for being an addict any more than they would be punished for having a mental illness. Drawing from the definition of status at the beginning , a drug addiction is a status, while storing drugs in a locker within a rental storage unit is an action. In some regards, this section is bringing to light the concept of freewill – that an individual chooses to take drugs, or be under the influence of them, and this choice should be punished.
This section builds up the ethos of the piece. The author is demonstrating his awareness of public perception, and his acceptance of that opinion by defeating the perception that "drug abuse must be treated as a crime" that the majority of the public believes is true. Ultimately, he comes to a conclusion about freedom, noting that the Constitution was "adopted with the knowledge that physical restraint of a human being would result in his destruction as a human being."
At its core, this argument is constructed well, using many of the techniques used in persuasive arguments. The writer uses emotion and appeals to the audience in the moment by discussing the popularity of the current law and its overall depth of impact. There is a logical argument present in the way the persuasive techniques and sentences build on one another. The biggest strength this case has is cutting to the heart of the issue quickly, and offering a simple remedy that is easy to understand.
