Learning to Read Like a Lawyer 69the meaning of key features of important facts. The message is delivered with
humor, and the professor moves quickly off the student when it becomes appar-
ent that he has bogged down. However, a very similar message about the require-
ments of a good legal reading is conveyed. And though he is not grilled mercilessly,
the student is for a moment caught in a Socratic spotlight without all of the neces-
sary equipment, with almost one hundred fellow first-year students looking on.
The general message is succinctly expressed by another professor, when advising a
student who was unable to answer this kind of detailed background factual ques-
tion: “Look it up, and do some thinking” (1/4/10).
At the same time as they focus in on very detailed exegetical discussion of some
facts, professors also pass lightly over others. This again retrains students’ vision,
teaching them to hover carefully over some quite particular details while painting
large parts of the story with a very broad brush.
Transcript 4.6 [3/3/3]Prof.: Hi. Um, can you start developing for us the arguments for the plaintiff
and the defendant. (.) Um, Ms. N.?
Ms. N.: Um, that the plaintiff was a young, youthful man // with //
Prof.: // great // the plaintiff
was a beautiful man (). [[class laughter]] Is that what you said?The professor breaks in on the student’s attempt to tell the story of the case in a
traditional narrative frame, directing her away from details of the plaintiff’s ap-
pearance that are legally irrelevant, but that might be of great interest in a popular
telling of the story. Rather than focus on detailed descriptions of the characters in
the drama, the professor urges the student to skip to a discussion of the two pos-
sible legal approaches that might apply to the facts in this case: “Okay, all right, so
there’s a lot at stake in the choice of which branch of this rule to apply in this par-
ticular fact situation. And all I’m interested in, Ms. N., is what the arguments are,
um, for cost of completion, which is what the plaintiff wants in both cases, and
what the arguments are for diminution in value, which is what the defendant wants
in both cases, all right? I want the argument, okay?” (3/3/4).^58
As they urge students to focus on some details while ignoring others, profes-
sors also underscore the peculiarly circumscribed epistemological status of the facts
in legal texts:
Transcript 4.7 [4/1/8]Prof.: Does the court ever say- does the New Hampshire Supreme Court ever
say, “And then we know for a fact that Dr. McGee said, quote [professor
writes quote on blackboard]?” Does the court ever say that?
Student: No.
Prof.: No. What does the court say? How does the court characterize what the
doctor said? (.09 pause) What’s the best we can say about these
statements?
Student: That there’s some likelihood that they had been spoken (.)