Learning to Read Like a Lawyer 65tations. Although the classes diverge in style, there are some striking commonali-
ties among them, much as English teachers might instruct their students about
English grammar in a variety of ways, but still be imparting some basically identi-
cal messages regarding language structure.
Most of the professors’ turns in the classrooms of this study can be character-
ized as falling into one (or several) of the following indigenous categories: (a) clari-
fying facts; (b) applying legal principles to facts, which entails identifying the legal
issues raised by the case and linking them to particulars of the case; (c) clarifying
law, from doctrine to technical terms; (d) parsing the effects of legal procedure;
and (e) discussing policy or social implications of legal decisions, including con-
sideration of strategic concerns. These aspects of a case law reading, found in all of
the classrooms, are classic components of the genre as it is understood “from the
inside” and thus become core organizing principles. In addition, some turns could
be described as giving general clarifications and comments (this includes explana-
tions of the conventions behind a legal reading of texts, warnings regarding the
realities of legal practice, discussions of class or law school requirements, and, in-
terestingly, discussions of social and emotional contexts).
Several additional features are worth mentioning. First, we find frequent deploy-
ment of hypothetical examples at various points in classroom discussion. Hypo-
theticals can be used to push students toward further clarity in applying law to facts,
or toward better articulation of legal principles, or toward sharper delineation of
competing policy or social interests. Second (and this is discussed in detail in Chap-
ter 6), most of the professors make use of role-playing to locate students as charac-
ters within the new legal landscapes and narratives created by legal texts and readings.
Another feature that is delineated further in Chapter 6 is the simultaneous mention
and marginalization of social contexts, moral considerations, and emotionality. Fi-
nally, sprinkled throughout all portions of the discussion are speculations as to strategy
and motive: the judges’ motives for ruling as they do, the litigants’ motives for be-
having or arguing as they do, the lawyers’ motives for pitching the arguments they
make in particular ways. These speculations further highlight the sense of legal nar-
ratives as contingent on power and metalinguistic maneuvering.
Quite frequently, class discussions of a case began with a recitation of the facts,
during which students were called on to select and correctly recount those details
of the events in question most pertinent to the legal issues raised in the case. Reci-
tations of facts thus often merged into applications of law to facts, as professors
guided students to select the particular details required by legal tests. Once the facts
had been clearly enunciated, professors frequently moved onto legal analysis, ask-
ing students to state explicitly the connections between particular facts and the
requirements of legal tests. If procedural issues affected which issues could be raised
and therefore which facts were pertinent, they would also be addressed at some
point in the discussion. (A number of professors began case discussions by stress-
ing procedural issues to a greater degree early in the semester, when students were
still learning to parse procedure in legal texts.) Professors also asked students to
spell out the legal tests, which commonly required students to repeat particular
words and phrases distilled from their readings of this or prior cases. At times, it
would be necessary for professors to pause over this task, reminding students of