Do lawyers need to know anything about science?

Question

My science teacher and have this argument since I want to be a lawyer/the president. Please be specific on what lawyers need to know in the science catorgory.

Answer 1

yes

Answer 2

That's like asking whether managers need to know anything about science. It depends entirely on what they're actually doing.

If the lawyer is handling a case that involves complex scientific principles, then they need to know enough to ask the right questions and get the right experts. But that varies based on the type of case, and applies only to litigators.

It may also depend on the area of law. Obviously, anyone engaged in patent law must at least be able to follow the science underlying the patents they're handing. Or a lawyer doing environmental law needs to understand basic biology and chemistry.

But if the lawyer is just doing transactional work (real estate, or standard business contracts, or wills/trusts), or even litigators handling non-science cases, then there is no direct need for specific scientific knowledge.

Of course, the background skills learned by scientists --- research, documentation, objective observation -- are generally useful. But science is not the only arena where those critical thinking abilities can be learned.

Answer 3

I would say the answer to most question on Yahoo! Answers is "it depends."

Getting as broad of a background in education is always a good thing. So technically, you will be a better lawyer the more you know about anything. I would also say that in life it will always be good to have the basic, high-school level or first year colege level science courses if only to have that basic knowledge about the physical world.

But realistically, the answer is a definite NO. Unless you want a job working for a biotech company, pharmaceutical company or working on patents on drugs, etc. you probably don't need the sciences. Someone (i.e my brother) who works in financial law has no use for science. Others who do work with things that touch the sciences can work with experts who can provide the technical background they need without having to major in chemistry. Keep in mind that someone who has a chemistry background and specializes in scientific areas of the law would be equally bad trying to work in financial law as a financial lawyer would be in their area.

What you want to do is acquire expertise in some area and then go back to law school to specialize in that area. So don't go right to law school without work experience.

So to let your teacher feel good you can agree that the more you know about science (or anything else) the better off you will be in life. That is a fact. But not having a science background will in no way stop you from being very sucessful in the law (at least most parts of it) - and there are so many parts of the law that you can avoid the ones that demand a science background.

Answer 4

Not if you're a tax lawyer or a trusts barrister. If you're involved with patents (many of the important ones concern the drugs industry and chemical companies), involved in healthcare stuff or any specialism with a scientific slant then definately: successful chemical patents lawyers have a first degree in chemistry but an employment lawyer does not need to know anything more scientific than what he can pick up from books when preparing for a relevant case but most. Lawyers need to know about the law and the intellectual repurcussions but no judge or jury will listen to their scientific opinion in court. They have to be bright enough to pick up concepts when they read about relevent areas or are in discussions with medical witnesses etc though. Some of the top law schools in the world (definately Oxford and Cambridge) accept science subjects at school to be just as relevant as argumentative, essay writing options but only because they demonstrate practical intellegence and an ability to deal with information and problems - essential for a lawyer but not the only source.

Answer 5

Most lawyers don't even have to know what carbon is. Patent lawyers should have a technical degree of some sort, but that's about it. Law is very similar to religion. The guy who hangs out at the temple and forgets to go home becomes a holy man regardless. Likewise the guy (or gal) who hangs out at the courthouse and forgets to go home becomes Your Honor.

Law school is utterly goofy. Been there; done that.

Answer 6

Good lawyers (and not just hacks) need a wide breadth of knowledge to try a case well. True, I can pick the brain of an expert and pretty knowledgeable at the end, but it's always best to begin with a firm foundation so I know what questions to ask.

Answer 7

Depends on what type of law they practice. I cannot see any need for most lawyers to have a background in science and I have known a couple of litigators who claim its better for them to have limited knowledge of complicated subjects because they can communicate better to the jury and leave the difficult stuff up to the expert witnesses.

Answer 8

The lawyers who absolutely must know about science are patent lawyers. You show your science teacher this link. http://www.ipwatchdog.com/patent_bar.html

And good luck with becoming a lawyer/the president!

Answer 9

You won't find a good patent lawyer without a strong background in engineering.
Basic needs...physics, chemistry, math sciences...to name a few.

Your teacher is right.

Answer 10

in case you do no longer prefer to alter right into a attorney , you could pass into being a professor in college, coaching the priority - or you like youthful childrens - in intense college, coaching social sciences. you additionally can grew to alter right into a source person in that distinctive field.