Lawyer Career Paper

The career I will be using for my standards for thinking assignment is a lawyer. I picked a career in law because that’s the field I want to go into in the future. As a lawyer you have to think critically. The nine standers of thinking our thinking styles I would use every day. Let’s start off with clarity. As a lawyer you must be clear to the individuals, groups, and organizations you represent. Although you can’t always guarantee a victory you must be clear and direct in telling your clients this is who I am, here are my plans for this case, and this is how I am going to take action. The more clear a lawyer is the more comfortable his clients are and for people going through tough times a little comfort can mean a lot. Also as lawyer you must be clear in the court room. Lawyers must convince and persuade jurors that there points are right and the opposition is wrong. You cannot convince a dog to sit up without being clear how would one convince twelve jurors. A capable lawyer is one who uses clarity when getting his points and evidence across to jurors. Many times this is done through looking jurors in the eyes and using a clear tone of voice. Lawyers are presented with a lot of information before going to trial. A great lawyer is one who knows how to use his information accurately. For example say I was a county prosecutor and an individual was contesting a DWI citation. An example of me using my information accurately would be presenting to the court the individuals breathalyzer results. From there proving my point that he or she was driving while under the influence. Precision is a step above accuracy lawyers must be specific and be detail orientated. When looking at the evidence every little detail matters and in contrast when presenting your evidence every specific detail a lawyer adds on paints a clearer picture for jurors. A criminal prosecutor can just convict someone because he says they did it. He must be specific with the information he presents to the court room. A big part of a lawyer’s day I believe would be separating what’s relevant to his cases and what’s not. For example say a lawyer was prepping for a murder trial. Using the suspects speeding tickets would be relevant in trying to convince jurors that the suspect is a violent killer. However what would be relevant to his case would be the suspect’s violent criminal history. The violent criminal history is important to the issue …show more content…
They are given the role whether to charge someone with a crime or not. A prosecutor would not have his job long if he only looked at cases from one view point before deciding charge individuals. Criminal cases have a variety views they can be looked at and analyzed. You can’t just look at evidence. You must understand all the information, evidence, the individual’s prior history, and also how the evidence is obtained. For example say a criminal prosecutor was presented a confession an individual made about a theft case. The prosecutor asked the officer how he got the confession. The officer responds I had to beat it out of him. A lawyer who uses breadth would look at the confession from the suspect’s perspective and understand maybe he made the confession to get the beating to