Legal Reasoning and Approach to Legal Problems

Before delving into the main subject matter of the topic, it is important to first understand what is meant by legal reasoning. While legal has to do with the law, reasoning is to think is an orderly or sensible pattern. Legal reasoning is therefore the pattern of logical and persuasive thoughts in the presenting of issues relating to the law. It is important to know what legal reasoning refers to as the average person may see the reasoning pattern of legal practitioners, judges and law makers as vain and unnecessarily complex. This is why it is important to understand the thought process of these individuals and the motivations for that particular kind of thought process. There are several reasoning methods and approaches to solving legal problems. However, it is important to understand the language of the law before being concerned with the approaches.

The language of the law

The language which is being referred to in this sense is not the lingua franca of the law, but instead refers to how words and phrases are joined together to create the intended meanings. This also includes the characteristics of the language used in law which sets it apart from ordinary language. The characteristics are as follows.

The law is expressed in general terms: The law is usually worded in general terms, although this is not always the case. The reason for this is because the lawmakers realize that laws apply to a large spectrum of people in different circumstances, and so there is the need to phrase the law in such a way that it covers all possible situations. The lawmakers try to do this to the best of their abilities. Giving the laws a narrow and specific language would cause trouble if a varying situation comes up, and this is why even Farrah says that such specific language would not be helpful. The laws are general to enable the courts have room to do justice, as was the case in Donoghue v. Stevenson where it was held that a manufacturer of ginger beer had the duty to not let snails get into the product. However, the law can be specific when it is necessary to achieve the purpose of the law, and a law should not be so general that the purpose cannot be found.
The use of abstract concepts: Ordinarily, a lawyer is not allowed to create words. Lawyers have however been known to do this when there is no word in existence for the idea the lawyer seeks to convey. Abstract concepts are used to avoid long and verbose explanations. Such words which have special meanings in law include “contract”, “possession”, “company”, “fee simple”, etc. The concept of rule of law, instead of being explained in so many sentences, may be described as the supremacy of the constitution, equality before the law and fundamental human rights.
There is also the use of common words with uncommon meanings. An example is that while a layman may say he has a case in court, a lawyer may say he has a matter or a lawsuit. A lawyer may say “it is submitted that…” instead of saying “the court should hold that…”
There is the use of latin words and phrases in the legal language. Phrases like nemo judex in causa sua, ubi jus ibi remedium, ultra vires, etc. may be used in law depite not being part of the English Language. Britain has begun departing from this practice, and it is possible that other jurisdictions will soon follow.
There is the frequent use of archaic English words in law. Such words include “hereinbefore”, “aforementioned”, etc.
The same way a lot have professions have their jargons, law also has its own jargons which are spoken by legal practitioners and are often not understood by those outside the profession. “My brief has not been perfected” may mean something else to a layman, when the real meaning is that a lawyer’s fees have not been paid.
There is the frequent use of resonant formal words which might be seen has the repetition of the same idea in different words by some. An example of this is “the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.”

The greatest influence of the language of the law is the history of legal development. In addition to the language, there is also the habit of wearing robes and wigs in courts of record. This is seen as unnecessary by a good number of people, as it in no way improves seriousness and only serves to mystify the profession from the public.

Methods of legal reasoning

Since law is usually framed in general language, the meaning of the words may sometimes be ambiguous. Parties often try to take advantage of the ambiguity and the judges are stuck with the duty of deciding the proper interpretation. It becomes necessary to study the different methods of reasoning in the legal field.

Principles and rules

Principles of law are established legal truths or prepositions that are so clear that they cannot be reproved except with the proposition of another principle which is clearer. A principle is an established ideal or value and legislations and judicial decisions are judged either valid or invalid based on principles. Some of the principles of constitutional law are separation of powers, rule of law, supremacy of the constitution, etc., while a principle of administrative law is the principle of natural justice. A rule is the instance of application of a principle, and may be seen as the aspects of a principle. For example, the principle of natural justice states that a party should not be a judge in his own case (nemo judex in causa sua) and both parties should be heard before judgment is given (audi alterem partem). The two rules make up the principle which is natural justice.

Legal rhetoric

Rhetoric is the art of persuading the minds of men with the use of words. Plato defined it as the art of winning a man’s mind with words. It is important that a lawyer possesses rhetoric to convince the judge to accept his argument. Language is important to the lawyer as a hammer is important to a carpenter, it is a vital tool of his profession. Aristotle was of the view that rhetoric could either be forensic or deliberative, and that forensic rhetoric was the more noble one for a statesman. Generally, lawyers use forensic rhetoric while judges use deliberative rhetoric. Lawyers represent the interests of their clients and their goal is to convince the judge to accept their point of view, while judges are more concerned about arriving at a rational decision which is justifiable in the overall interest of the parties and the society. The principal rhetorical instrument used in law is appeal to authorities. In Nigeria and other common law countries, these authorities include earlier cases and statutes. It is these authorities that the legal man seeks to use in convincing whoever his words are directed at. It can be seen that the lawyer requires essential knowledge of the laws and principles and how to apply them.

Legal logic

It is not enough for a lawyer to know the facts of his case and the applicable authorities. It is also necessary that the lawyer presents his argument in a logical manner. Through the use of logic, a lawyer can reason clearly and put his thoughts across firmly. The understanding of logic would also help a lawyer prevent the presentation of faulty arguments and to spot the fault in the arguments of others. Logic may either be deductive, inductive or analogical reasoning.

Syllogism or deductive logic

Syllogism is a deductive form of argument. There is usually a major premise which is a general statement, a minor premise which is more specific to the issue at hand, and a conclusion drawn from the two premises. It is a connection of propositions whereby the conclusion draws from the two premises. An example is as follows.

All men have short hair.
Ade is a man.
Ade has short hair.

The conclusion of Ade having short hair is based on the first premise that all men have short hair and the second premise that Ade is a man. This is deductive logic, and it moves from the general to the specific. If a lawyer wants to use deductive logic to arrive at a conclusion, he usually starts by identifying the law, proceeds to his client’s specific case, and then draws a logical conclusion. An example is as follows.

Whoever takes another’s property with the intention to permanently deny him of it is guilty of stealing.
Gbemi took Fisayo’s property with the intention to permanently deny Fisayo of it.
Gbemi is guilty of stealing.

However, the major problem with syllogism is that it is concerned more with validity than truth. Once a wrong premise has been established, the conclusion shall be wrong and false, and yet the argument would still be logical. This is why a lawyer should learn to know when a premise is false so that he may point out the flaw in the argument.

Inductive logic

Inductive logic is a kind of argument whereby there is a movement from the specific to the general, as opposed to the deductive logic which moves from the general to the specific. While deductive logic is usually used by lawyers when a statute is being consulted, inductive logic is used when case law is being consulted. The lawyer then moves from specific situations to draw his conclusion. An example is as follows.

The court held that damage should not include whatever is remote in Hadley v. Baxendale.
The court also held in Adetoun Oladeji v. Nigerian Breweries Ltd. that damages should not include whatever is remote.
All these cases have similar features with the case at hand, and so Mr. Obinna should not pay damages for what is remote.

Inductive logic is also used by the judges

Analogical reasoning

It was stated by Lord Diplock that in reasoning, a person must identify what he is looking for and look for similar cases. This is what is used by the courts to differentiate between cases or to conclude that cases are similar.

It should be noted that judges do not always follow authorities which lawyers have appealed to. A judge may not accept a lawyer’s argument despite the backing of authority for various reasons. It might be because it contradicts some other authorities, because it shall do injustice, because it is against common sense and the supposed view of a reasonable man or because it is against public policy, i.e. against public good. The court stated in Chinwendu v. Mbamali that courts should not do injustice because of technicalities. This shows that a judge might refuse to accept an authority if it is a technical guise to lure the judge into doing injustice.