ADRO 22A00 - Thinking Like A Lawyer

« Thinking Like a Lawyer » is a class on the role of legal vocabulary and reasoning in contemporary societies. Is there indeed a particular language that only a legal professional can comprehend? Or on the contrary, is a particular understanding of the law and its expression necessary to all individuals? Indeed, we all accomplish legal acts in our daily lives – by buying bread at the bakery we conclude a contract, when riding our bikes to class we follow certain rules to avoid being liable for creating an accident… – but what exactly is the “law”, and what is a “lawyer”? Literary works throughout history have painted a terrifying picture of the reality of obscure, esoteric meanderings of legal systems that were nominally designed to maintain a just and fair society for the common man.

Our aim is to allow students that have not necessarily decided on a career in law, to understand:

-Firstly, the recurring themes of law (what is law, what are rules and norms, how are they enacted and sometimes codified in different legal orders and systems, how are they interpreted and argued, and how are they judged),

-Secondly, how the variations on these themes have been implemented differently in multiple systems and then been contested and evolved over time.

-Thirdly, with this reasoning on the themes and variations of law mastered, we will then apply it to specific legal actions (the improvisations): contract law, tort law, defense of individual rights and due process in a globalized world.

Interactive lecture course with seminars. English

To validate the course, the student is expected to pass the THREE following assignments (66,5% seminar grade / 33,5% final exam grade): NB if you do not submit a midterm paper you fail the class.

• Mean grade of participation in weekly seminar debates (30% of the seminar grade)

oEach week, from seminars 1 - 8, seminar teachers will instruct students to prepare ONE of the required SEMINAR readings or cases that all students must read and then formulate a critical analysis in question form (Do you agree with the holding in the case or with the position of the author, or rather with the dissent, or with another opinion? Why?). The following week, the seminar instructor will choose randomly two or more students’ analysis (so that each student will be interrogated directly on their critical analysis several times in the semester). The student will present the critical analysis before the class; the instructor will then dialogue with the student as to the pertinence of the analysis and the precision of the legal vocabulary used, before inviting another student to to join in the debate by formulating a DIFFERENT opinion on the same question. NB: you may also be interrogated indirectly on specific questions several times during the semester, including two successive sessions, so you must prepare the readings even after you have been directly chosen to present your critical analysis. The final debate grade will be comprised of the mean grade of all sessions for each student.

o Seminars 9 – 12 are mock trials in which each student will be graded each week according to their individual performance and preparation.

• One midterm paper (chosen from the four topics proposed hereafter) (30% of the seminar grade)

o Essay (introduction, critical issue, thesis, headings, conclusion, bibliography): 3 500 words (not including footnotes, nor the bibliography), times new roman, font 12, double spaced, at least 10 bibliographical references (Bluebook citation, as indicated in P. Martin, Basic Legal Citation (on Google Drive); See evaluation sheet hereafter page 8.

o Choose ONE of the following topics. NB: you may treat the topic purely theoretically (examining the general aspects of the problem raised by the topic), or you may limit the topic by focusing on a specific example (for example «Creation and interpretation of law: exploring the limits to digital constitutionalism »; or « Penumbra in the law: the example of same-sex marriage in Japan »; or «Alternative Dispute Resolution and the Rule of Law: the example of Environmental Disputes »). However, in both approaches your critical issue, outline, and arguments must cover ALL of the topic as worded hereafter; your example will simply be underscoring your theoretical knowledge and linking it to a practical illustration. This means that even if your chosen example concerns only one legal system, in your developments you must compare it to other systems (both common law and civil law, and if pertinent international or regional law).

• « Penumbra in the Law »
• «Création and Interpretation of Law»
• « Is the Critical Legal Studies Movement Still Pertinent? »
• «Alternative Dispute Resolution and the Rule of Law »

o You must submit your chosen topic, critical issue, thesis and bibliography on or before October 6 to gretchen.allenmestrallet@sciencespo.fr

o After validation, the topic will be assigned to one of the seminar instructors.

o Final paper is due on or before November 6 (no late papers will be accepted after that date without a medical certificate or explicit authorization from the SciencesPo Academic Advisor) via your assigned instructor’s SciencesPo email address and their URKUND address.

• One 15 minute group oral presentation by 2 or 3 students in seminars between sessions 2 and 8 on the assigned jurisprudence (in seminar documents) followed by 30 minutes of questions and debate on your analysis (40% of the seminar grade): A written outline of your case comment will allow you to verify that you have properly followed the methodology for the case comment. Your written outline must be sent to your seminar instructor by 8:00 p.m. the day before your presentation. Late submissions will be excepted only upon PRIOR authorization. You may then present the case as a team with or without power points. In order for your colleagues to follow your presentation, you will send either the power points, or the written outline to your seminar group. See evaluation sheet hereafter on the method required for case study and case comment in this class, which takes into account the introductory nature of this class, as well as its comparative context. Note that there is no obligatory length for your case comment outline, but as indicated on the evaluation sheet (page 7 hereafter) you are graded on the quality of your synthesis, and the case analysis must be able to be presented orally within the 15-minute timeframe. Presentations begin in session 2 but all students must prepare the case analysis for session 1, as instructors may interrogate students on their opinion of the majority and the dissenting opinions; dates for the presentations will be assigned during the welcome week, however topics will be given by the instructor one week prior to the presentation; if you must miss a seminar you must therefore notify the instructor in advance, absences are excused only with a medical certificate or excuse from the Administration prior to the presentation.
• Three hour written final exam (case study, case comment, or essay) which shall be a written, open-book exam (both class notes and readings may be accessed on computers) (33,5% of the final grade). NB: for the final exam, the topic – contrary to the midterm paper – may not be limited to a specific example (the wording may not be modified and all of the topic must be covered).

Twelve two-hour lectures will engage students in critical analysis of readings and case law. It is recommended to have prepared thoroughly the required readings before the lecture in order to respond quickly and precisely when called upon. The workload varies from week to week, so it may be useful to plan ahead. Both class notes and required readings may be used for the final exam, so students must organize their personal and class notes from the first session on. Twelve two-hour seminars will comprise both theoretical (essays, debates) and practical (case analysis, hypotheticals, construction of arguments, interpretation of texts, mock trials) exercises. At the end of the course, the student is expected to:

• Be able to articulate a personal and reasoned assessment of the evolution of legal reasoning and normativity in a globalized world.
• Have gained first level legal research and basic legal citation skills.
• Have mastered argumentative techniques as implemented in essay form, as well as continental and common law legal reasoning in case studies and case comments.