Two propositions

Here are two propositions to ponder. One day I will write an essay on one or the other or both. But “one day” has been a long time coming, and may yet be a long time coming. So I’ve decided to go ahead and air them now, without supporting reasons, to see what you think. Here goes:

1. Every lawyer is presumed to be full of bullshit until he or she proves otherwise.


2. Argument is not the same as persuasion. Argument, properly done, is necessary to persuasion. But argument alone does not persuade. Improper or inappropriate argument impedes persuasion.

Comments, anyone?

Comments

[Pseudoboethiusdegeometria]

Argument appeals to the head; to persuade you must incorporate an appeal to the gut.

[Appellate Lawyer]

Generally, I agree with Proposition 2. But I disagree with Proposition 1 because it is a generalization. But along the lines of the point you seem to be trying to make, maybe a better proposition would be what one of my mentors, who is a very good lawyer, said: "Good lawyers don't talk. Good lawyers listen."
Maybe you should modify Proposition 1 to reference talkative lawyers.

[Appellate Lawyer]

I would replace Proposition 1 with what a good friend and mentor has said: "Good lawyers don't talk, good lawyers listen"

[Scott Stolley]

I think you are on target with both thoughts. And they are tied together. A lawyer is presumed to be full of BS because what most lawyers try to sell is argument, not persuasion. Lawyers have a hard time giving up on arguments, and will make any argument they can think of, no matter how improbable. I am reminded of this every time the trial lawyer who handled the case before I got the appeal insists on making appellate arguments that I think are losers. The ability to discriminate between strong and weak arguments is am important skill. Lawyers who have that skill will have an easier time overcoming the presumption that lawyers are full of BS.

[Ryan]

1. You're right regarding the first one--in general. The average lawyer is presumed to be full of BS because we assume that the lawyer will shade the facts or law to benefit his client.

2. You need to define your terms here. To understand your proposition or offer agreement etc., we'll need to know what you mean by "argument" v. "persuasion."

[celia]

I've never thought of proposition 1 as an absolute. Yes, I've known some lawyers who were full of bs, and it was obvious from the moment you met them. But I've also met many about whom I felt otherwise.

I think proposition 2 hits the nail on the head extremely well.

[iEditor]

I like and agree completely with proposition two. But could it be shorter to bring out what I see as the most important part? That would make it just "Improper or inappropriate argument impedes persuasion". Or perhaps "Argument, properly done, is necessary to persuasion. However, improper or inappropriate argument impedes persuasion".