*/
When I taught on the Bar course, week one revealed the tiny number of students who would sail through the course and then life as a lawyer. It wasn’t just that they were fiercely intelligent, though most were. It wasn’t 22 mini-pupillages under their belt, though they all had some work experience. It wasn’t that they arrived with a pupillage, though they all did.
It was that they already thought like a lawyer.
In my years of teaching, I could count these students on two hands. By the end of the course, it was an exponentially larger number who had made the jump – with many more on their way there. I know I didn’t get there overnight but once I did and everything clicked, it made each day a little less worrying about whether I was getting things right and a little more about serving my client, well. Now, as a former lawyer, these same skills serve me well in a different world.
To make sure that I was correctly calibrating my advice on what thinking like a lawyer really means, I decided to ask the many lawyers I still know for their advice. Peppered through this article then, you’ll see wise words backed by hundreds of years of cumulative knowledge and experience. My thanks to the almost 100 lawyers who answered my one question survey: ‘What does “thinking like a lawyer” mean to you?’
If I distil down the most prevalent answer I got, it was this. Apply the law to the facts. Carefully analyse what’s in front of you. Read every word and think about how it affects your case. I agree with it all. This is probably the clearest articulation of what a lawyer does, day to day. It is ‘thinking like a lawyer’. One senior barrister neatly summarised it and added the distinction between a lawyer and an advocate:
Thinking like a lawyer: applying an established framework of principles to the critical and objective analysis of a particular problem.
Thinking like an advocate: using that framework as a tool, in order persuasively to advance your client’s position.
But in isolation and for a student, it’s the amalgam of lots of sub-skills to this uber skill. I recall once using this phrase to a student and they looked back at me as if I’d said: ‘The bicycle is shining on my knees.’ If you don’t know how to apply the law to the facts, mere repetition of a maxim will not help. So, let’s break it down into stages.
I’m aware this sounds trite, but experience tells me that some people think they can skip this part. Reading some of the papers or just the ones you deem important on the face of it, just isn’t enough. In time you will learn how to triage and manage voluminous documents.
@Barrister7 on Twitter summarises what you are looking for:
Question everything and beware assumptions. What is the authority for this? Is it admissible? Is it relevant? Does it actually help our case?
When you’re answering a problem question, advising a client or making submissions, you must define the issues. What does the court need to resolve in order to reach judgment in your favour? Be it the ingredients of an offence, the limbs or a test, you need to know what they are, how they interact with each other. Is it conjunctive or disjunctive? If you meet the elements, must a court do what you ask, or is it still discretionary? From here you can work out what is in dispute, what you need to prove, and the standard to which you must do so.
Lucy Garrett KC of Keating Chambers adds:
Rigorously testing your case against each of the elements of the cause of action in a forensic and structured way. For example, it’s often reasonably straightforward to establish breach, but causation is a whole different ballgame requiring different factual and sometimes expert evidence.
Sportspeople say: ‘You know.’ Politicians say: ‘Look,’ and ‘Let me be clear.’ Fictitious lawyers say: ‘I put it to you.’ A good advocate cuts the verbal doodling and gets to the point by telling the court what they have to say in clear and concise terms.
Consider the difference:
My Lord, you know, I think that the defendant has, you know, if we look at the evidence, you know and there is lots of evidence in the bundle. He has tried to make sure that the case has been clearly put and has four good points you know, that’s what he has done. So to be clear, that’s my submission. I put it to the court that judgment has to be set aside.
versus:
My Lord, I submit that judgment in default be set aside because the defendant has a real prospect of defending the claim. I have four points and turn to the first…
A clear active proposition tells the court what you want them to find.
Now that you have a set of propositions you need to support them with evidence. Judges love evidence. Can’t get enough of it. Bald assertions make judges cross. Replace the word ‘judge’ with ‘tutor’ and the same is true on the Bar course. There is a real skill in going through a brief and finding everything that supports your case and/or weakens the other side. Each of these nuggets of evidence is capable of supporting one of your propositions.
Jason Braier of 42 Bedford Row puts it shortly:
Thinking like a lawyer means having the discipline to focus on the claim brought and how the evidence can be presented to persuade a tribunal of your client’s position, and not be sidetracked by extraneous facts, no matter how fascinating they might be.
Your analysis of the evidence must be accurate both legally and factually. Evidence either exists or it doesn’t. If it does, then it has a weight which can range from worthless to crushing. Don’t confuse the two concepts. I used to bristle when I heard a student say ‘there’s no evidence of X’ when what they actually mean is that there is some evidence, but they want you to give it little or no weight. If Man 1 and Man 2 are in a room together and Man 1 punches Man 2 with no witnesses, CCTV or cameraphone recording then it’s inaccurate to say that there is no evidence of Man 1 punching Man 2. What you might mean is that there is no independent evidence or because Man 2 is a chronic liar, that Man 2 is not capable of belief and therefore little weight should be placed on his evidence. Nuance and accuracy are your friend.
It wouldn’t take too long to find a case determined by the meaning of a single word. Every word you use matters. You will quite quickly find that a Bar course tutor, judge or opponent comments on single word that you use in a document or oral advocacy as being inaccurate or incorrect. It can seem picky, hurtful or irrelevant, but take a moment to consider the difference between the word you used and the one they suggest you use instead. Do you understand the difference? A single letter might make all the difference. As I’ve said more than once:
Quash is what you can do to an indictment. Squash (cubed and roasted) makes a wonderful addition to a risotto.
The law isn’t just about the law, it involves people. As some of the exhibits I’ve seen in the past demonstrate, people do the strangest things. A good lawyer will stop to take the time to think about the practicalities of a situation and use their common sense. A great lawyer will do it without thinking. The law can sometimes blind you to what would otherwise be obvious. How could the man see the cat and his speedometer at the same crucial point? Save with the assistance of a jetpack, how can someone be in place X and then place Y, five miles away, just five minutes later?
Sense check what you have drafted. Consider the bigger picture. Sarah Magill of Lincoln House Chambers puts it thus:
Never taking what I read or hear at first blush to be correct; always researching first, looking for evidence that corroborates or disproves it, right down to the last granular detail.
A number of barristers were keen to point out the importance of trusting your judgement and the fine line between standing your ground and conceding where necessary. This comes with time and learning by doing both on the course and in court.
As Lizzie Boulden of 12KBW says:
Looking critically at the evidence to consider both the strengths and weaknesses of your case, rather than saying what your client wants to hear.
For the oral skills there’s a fine line between rehearsing your submissions or questions to a witness so that you get a feel for what works, and over-rehearsal to the point where in class it sounds stale. I would suggest that saying things out loud at least once is the verbal equivalent of proofreading written work. Nobody wants to ask a witness:
On a scale of 1-10, what’s your favourite colour of the alphabet?
Not just oral advocacy. Written work also benefits from being read aloud. It can highlight errors, tonality the reader might draw that you don’t mean and occasionally, just occasionally, an unfortunate turn of phrase that might be a little embarrassing…
The most impressive lawyers use a few careful words to make their point. The language is simple and as a result, the level of comprehension by those listening, high and reached quickly.
Sean Jones KC (@seanjoneskc) said:
I think we have a mindset that likes to test propositions. We ask ourselves ‘what if?’ a lot. What if this fact were different? Would my answer still hold good? Another habit of thought is trying always to find the easiest way of putting something: reducing ideas to their basics. That same need to explain and convince also means lawyers rely heavily on analogies.
So there we are. Thinking like a lawyer. Just remember it doesn’t have to be a setting you leave switched on all the time, as Hitesh Dhorajiwala of Devereux Chambers reminds us:
A form of analysis, which hopefully doesn’t bleed into your personal life.
Ishan Kolhatkar was called to the Bar in 2002 and was in chambers until 2011. He then taught on the Bar course before leaving to pursue a career in education technology but retains a door tenancy. He is Executive Strategy Officer at Bridging the Bar. He enjoys cooking and taking photos of his food. Probably in equal measures.
When I taught on the Bar course, week one revealed the tiny number of students who would sail through the course and then life as a lawyer. It wasn’t just that they were fiercely intelligent, though most were. It wasn’t 22 mini-pupillages under their belt, though they all had some work experience. It wasn’t that they arrived with a pupillage, though they all did.
It was that they already thought like a lawyer.
In my years of teaching, I could count these students on two hands. By the end of the course, it was an exponentially larger number who had made the jump – with many more on their way there. I know I didn’t get there overnight but once I did and everything clicked, it made each day a little less worrying about whether I was getting things right and a little more about serving my client, well. Now, as a former lawyer, these same skills serve me well in a different world.
To make sure that I was correctly calibrating my advice on what thinking like a lawyer really means, I decided to ask the many lawyers I still know for their advice. Peppered through this article then, you’ll see wise words backed by hundreds of years of cumulative knowledge and experience. My thanks to the almost 100 lawyers who answered my one question survey: ‘What does “thinking like a lawyer” mean to you?’
If I distil down the most prevalent answer I got, it was this. Apply the law to the facts. Carefully analyse what’s in front of you. Read every word and think about how it affects your case. I agree with it all. This is probably the clearest articulation of what a lawyer does, day to day. It is ‘thinking like a lawyer’. One senior barrister neatly summarised it and added the distinction between a lawyer and an advocate:
Thinking like a lawyer: applying an established framework of principles to the critical and objective analysis of a particular problem.
Thinking like an advocate: using that framework as a tool, in order persuasively to advance your client’s position.
But in isolation and for a student, it’s the amalgam of lots of sub-skills to this uber skill. I recall once using this phrase to a student and they looked back at me as if I’d said: ‘The bicycle is shining on my knees.’ If you don’t know how to apply the law to the facts, mere repetition of a maxim will not help. So, let’s break it down into stages.
I’m aware this sounds trite, but experience tells me that some people think they can skip this part. Reading some of the papers or just the ones you deem important on the face of it, just isn’t enough. In time you will learn how to triage and manage voluminous documents.
@Barrister7 on Twitter summarises what you are looking for:
Question everything and beware assumptions. What is the authority for this? Is it admissible? Is it relevant? Does it actually help our case?
When you’re answering a problem question, advising a client or making submissions, you must define the issues. What does the court need to resolve in order to reach judgment in your favour? Be it the ingredients of an offence, the limbs or a test, you need to know what they are, how they interact with each other. Is it conjunctive or disjunctive? If you meet the elements, must a court do what you ask, or is it still discretionary? From here you can work out what is in dispute, what you need to prove, and the standard to which you must do so.
Lucy Garrett KC of Keating Chambers adds:
Rigorously testing your case against each of the elements of the cause of action in a forensic and structured way. For example, it’s often reasonably straightforward to establish breach, but causation is a whole different ballgame requiring different factual and sometimes expert evidence.
Sportspeople say: ‘You know.’ Politicians say: ‘Look,’ and ‘Let me be clear.’ Fictitious lawyers say: ‘I put it to you.’ A good advocate cuts the verbal doodling and gets to the point by telling the court what they have to say in clear and concise terms.
Consider the difference:
My Lord, you know, I think that the defendant has, you know, if we look at the evidence, you know and there is lots of evidence in the bundle. He has tried to make sure that the case has been clearly put and has four good points you know, that’s what he has done. So to be clear, that’s my submission. I put it to the court that judgment has to be set aside.
versus:
My Lord, I submit that judgment in default be set aside because the defendant has a real prospect of defending the claim. I have four points and turn to the first…
A clear active proposition tells the court what you want them to find.
Now that you have a set of propositions you need to support them with evidence. Judges love evidence. Can’t get enough of it. Bald assertions make judges cross. Replace the word ‘judge’ with ‘tutor’ and the same is true on the Bar course. There is a real skill in going through a brief and finding everything that supports your case and/or weakens the other side. Each of these nuggets of evidence is capable of supporting one of your propositions.
Jason Braier of 42 Bedford Row puts it shortly:
Thinking like a lawyer means having the discipline to focus on the claim brought and how the evidence can be presented to persuade a tribunal of your client’s position, and not be sidetracked by extraneous facts, no matter how fascinating they might be.
Your analysis of the evidence must be accurate both legally and factually. Evidence either exists or it doesn’t. If it does, then it has a weight which can range from worthless to crushing. Don’t confuse the two concepts. I used to bristle when I heard a student say ‘there’s no evidence of X’ when what they actually mean is that there is some evidence, but they want you to give it little or no weight. If Man 1 and Man 2 are in a room together and Man 1 punches Man 2 with no witnesses, CCTV or cameraphone recording then it’s inaccurate to say that there is no evidence of Man 1 punching Man 2. What you might mean is that there is no independent evidence or because Man 2 is a chronic liar, that Man 2 is not capable of belief and therefore little weight should be placed on his evidence. Nuance and accuracy are your friend.
It wouldn’t take too long to find a case determined by the meaning of a single word. Every word you use matters. You will quite quickly find that a Bar course tutor, judge or opponent comments on single word that you use in a document or oral advocacy as being inaccurate or incorrect. It can seem picky, hurtful or irrelevant, but take a moment to consider the difference between the word you used and the one they suggest you use instead. Do you understand the difference? A single letter might make all the difference. As I’ve said more than once:
Quash is what you can do to an indictment. Squash (cubed and roasted) makes a wonderful addition to a risotto.
The law isn’t just about the law, it involves people. As some of the exhibits I’ve seen in the past demonstrate, people do the strangest things. A good lawyer will stop to take the time to think about the practicalities of a situation and use their common sense. A great lawyer will do it without thinking. The law can sometimes blind you to what would otherwise be obvious. How could the man see the cat and his speedometer at the same crucial point? Save with the assistance of a jetpack, how can someone be in place X and then place Y, five miles away, just five minutes later?
Sense check what you have drafted. Consider the bigger picture. Sarah Magill of Lincoln House Chambers puts it thus:
Never taking what I read or hear at first blush to be correct; always researching first, looking for evidence that corroborates or disproves it, right down to the last granular detail.
A number of barristers were keen to point out the importance of trusting your judgement and the fine line between standing your ground and conceding where necessary. This comes with time and learning by doing both on the course and in court.
As Lizzie Boulden of 12KBW says:
Looking critically at the evidence to consider both the strengths and weaknesses of your case, rather than saying what your client wants to hear.
For the oral skills there’s a fine line between rehearsing your submissions or questions to a witness so that you get a feel for what works, and over-rehearsal to the point where in class it sounds stale. I would suggest that saying things out loud at least once is the verbal equivalent of proofreading written work. Nobody wants to ask a witness:
On a scale of 1-10, what’s your favourite colour of the alphabet?
Not just oral advocacy. Written work also benefits from being read aloud. It can highlight errors, tonality the reader might draw that you don’t mean and occasionally, just occasionally, an unfortunate turn of phrase that might be a little embarrassing…
The most impressive lawyers use a few careful words to make their point. The language is simple and as a result, the level of comprehension by those listening, high and reached quickly.
Sean Jones KC (@seanjoneskc) said:
I think we have a mindset that likes to test propositions. We ask ourselves ‘what if?’ a lot. What if this fact were different? Would my answer still hold good? Another habit of thought is trying always to find the easiest way of putting something: reducing ideas to their basics. That same need to explain and convince also means lawyers rely heavily on analogies.
So there we are. Thinking like a lawyer. Just remember it doesn’t have to be a setting you leave switched on all the time, as Hitesh Dhorajiwala of Devereux Chambers reminds us:
A form of analysis, which hopefully doesn’t bleed into your personal life.
The Chair of the Bar reports back
Clement Cowley, Partner at The Penny Group, explains how global events can influence the performance of pensions and ISAs, and why taking a long-term approach to investing is often the most effective strategy
Mário Barroso, Head of R&D and Method Development at AlphaBiolabs, discusses what family law professionals need to know about hallucinogens, from the main hallucinogenic drugs encountered in family proceedings, to their effects and the testing options available
Harmony Christian Ministries is the latest charity to benefit from a £500 donation from AlphaBiolabs via the company’s Giving Back initiative
By David Green
Mário Barroso, Head of R&D and Method Development at AlphaBiolabs, examines the forensic science underpinning hair drug testing, its evidential scope and limitations, and why it remains the gold standard for evidencing patterns of drug use in family proceedings
Developing a tech start-up demands a different definition of excellence to the Bar, says Saara Idelbi. The co-creator of Advocatr on entrepreneurship, AI advocacy training, and matching the thrill of a killer cross-examination
At the start of her term, Chair of the Bar 2026 Kirsty Brimelow KC set out a series of priorities for the year ahead. One of those priorities was children in the justice system
As the world becomes more digital, Barbara Vinagre Mota examines international research into the mental health consequences of judges’ exposure to graphic and immersive evidence, highlighting the importance of support systems
Reviewed by Daniel Barnett
James McNeill Whistler at Tate Britain until 27 September Rothko in Florence at Palazzo Strozzi until 23 August Reviewed by Stephen Cragg KC
