Chapter 6: Conclusion
We began with the question of how we should characterise what lawyers do. We have made the claim that characterising what lawyers do as engineering is both accurate and useful. It is accurate because it captures more of what lawyers do, both in private practice and in public service, than characterisations based on assuming that lawyers are engaged in litigation or on those that proceed from some form of evaluation, whether positive (lawyer-as-hero, lawyer-as-statesman) or negative (lawyer-as-trickster, lawyer-as-hired-gun). It is useful because it provides a sound starting point for appraising what lawyers do, through the application of engineering ethics to their activities, and for improving their performance, through searching for principles of effective design. Accuracy and utility might be thought to be enough, but we should consider some possible objections to thinking about law in engineering terms, and this chapter takes on that task. It also speculates on some possible further benefits of the approach and closes with a reflection on how seeing lawyers as engineers might save them from a repetition of the part they played in the Great Crash of 2008.
You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.
Elgaronline requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals. Please login through your library system or with your personal username and password on the homepage.
Non-subscribers can freely search the site, view abstracts/ extracts and download selected front matter and introductory chapters for personal use.
Your library may not have purchased all subject areas. If you are authenticated and think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.