By Lee A. Kraftchick
Legal professionals are incessantly stereotyped as being “unhealthy at math.” The stereotype is inaccurate. Legal professionals should make use of arithmetic usually in each litigation and transactional work; they can’t be innumerate and follow competently. The “attorneys are unhealthy at math” stereotype excuses in any other case unacceptable practices and should not be perpetuated.
The stereotype that “attorneys are unhealthy at math” comes primarily from attorneys themselves. Legal professionals usually joke about it. The chief justice himself, John Roberts, has mentioned, “I feel there are lots of people who go to legislation college as a result of they don’t seem to be good at math and may’t consider anything to do.” The joke even seems in revealed opinions: The formulation is “really easy that even a bunch of attorneys may determine it out.” If the stereotype have been merely a joke, it could be innocent. Sadly, many contend that attorneys have “embraced innumeracy.”
Whereas the stereotype is usually accepted at present, traditionally an understanding of math was thought of important to being a lawyer. The courts have lengthy acknowledged the connection between mathematical proof and authorized reasoning, even calling authorized rules “axioms” and “postulates.”
President Abraham Lincoln famously mentioned: “In the midst of my legislation studying, I consistently stumbled on the phrase ‘exhibit.’ [I concluded I could] by no means make a lawyer if (I) don’t perceive what ‘exhibit’ means; and I left [the study of law], went residence … and stayed there until I may give any propositions within the six books of Euclid at sight. I then came upon what ‘exhibit’ means and went again to my legislation research.”
Extra proof that legislation and math are intently linked comes within the fascinating type of attorneys who have been nice mathematicians. Pierre de Fermat spent his working profession as a Justice of the Peace writing authorized opinions, arithmetic was simply “a interest.” Fermat proved a number of vital propositions, however he’s finest remembered for what got here to be referred to as “Fermat’s Final Theorem,” the proposition that you may add two squares to get one other sq., however you can’t do the identical with cubes or larger powers.
The proposition remained a conjecture for over 350 years till 1994, when it was lastly proved. Gottfried Leibniz, who labored as a lawyer in appellate and diplomatic roles, developed the calculus independently of Isaac Newton. Christian Goldbach held authorized workplace within the Russian Ministry. “Goldbach’s Conjecture,” the proposition that each even integer larger than two will be expressed because the sum of two primes, proposed in 1742, has neither been proved nor disproved to at the present time.
Regardless of the historic connections between math and legislation, the “attorneys are unhealthy at math” stereotype has at present taken agency root. The stereotype stems from the best way attorneys are skilled and the best way some follow. Incidents of attorneys’ misunderstanding math are simple to seek out. They’re described in caselaw, scholarly articles and full books. Upon inspection, nonetheless, it seems these critics repeatedly cite the identical few examples of attorneys misusing math however ignore the hundreds of situations the place attorneys have used math correctly, which might tip the scales to indicate that attorneys will not be innumerate.
One case alone, Individuals v. Collins, through which a prosecutor improperly used statistics, has been cited dozens of occasions, however the case was promptly reversed. It’s troublesome to get an inexpensive estimate of the variety of circumstances involving attorneys committing math errors, however as Collins exhibits, the courts have usually prevented them from affecting ultimate choices.
There’s ample proof that attorneys use arithmetic usually and correctly. Transactional attorneys use arithmetic in property planning and different monetary issues. Felony attorneys use arithmetic within the analyses of proof and in challenges to prosecutorial conduct. Civil litigators use arithmetic in accident reconstruction, discrimination circumstances, to indicate monopolization in antitrust actions and to calculate damages. The mathematical strategies attorneys use range from easy arithmetic to stylish statistical analyses. For each quotation of a case exhibiting a lawyer misusing math, there are a whole lot exhibiting attorneys utilizing it correctly.
Most basically, mathematical reasoning is the mannequin for authorized reasoning. That is what President Lincoln meant when he mentioned he needed to examine Euclid’s Parts earlier than he may examine legislation. Mathematical reasoning makes use of a number of strategies of proof, together with deductive, proof by contradiction and proof by contraposition. Legal professionals use all of them.
There isn’t a extra proof to assist the “attorneys are unhealthy at math” stereotype than there’s proof to assist different unfavourable stereotypes about attorneys. Most attorneys aren’t any extra responsible of being “unhealthy at math” than they’re responsible of being unethical, obnoxious, manipulative, disingenuous, cash hungry, “sharks” or “ambulance chasers.” These stereotypes, like the maths stereotype, are primarily based on nothing greater than remoted situations of poor conduct.
Demonstrating that the “attorneys are unhealthy at math” stereotype is inaccurate is the simple half. The subsequent step, convincing attorneys and judges to cease perpetuating it, is rather more troublesome. Details ought to matter, however stereotypes are notoriously immune to info.
Individuals have a tendency to note and bear in mind incidents that assist their preconceived beliefs and to disregard something that challenges or contradicts them. The authorized occupation has internalized the stereotype to the purpose that almost all college students apply to legislation college assuming they’ll by no means have to make use of math, and a few attorneys keep away from utilizing math even when a authorized challenge requires it.
If attorneys can settle for that being “unhealthy at math” is just not one thing to flaunt, undergraduates serious about changing into attorneys shall be inspired to check arithmetic, together with logic and statistics. Legal professionals, realizing that the stereotype is fake, should settle for duty for recognizing mathematical points and examine the relevant math. Whereas attorneys could not need to personally know easy methods to use refined mathematical strategies, they do need to know when they’re related and easy methods to clarify their import to purchasers and decision-makers.
Innumeracy is just not restricted to attorneys. It has sadly develop into socially acceptable to say, “I’m unhealthy at math.” However simply because it’s tolerated doesn’t imply it’s in society’s finest pursuits for in any other case clever folks to proudly proclaim they’re poor at such an important talent. Saying you might be “unhealthy at math” is a self-fulfilling prophesy. In case you settle for being “unhealthy at math,” you aren’t more likely to do something to enhance. Given the pervasiveness of math in our fashionable technological society, we can’t afford to perpetuate the parable that it’s acceptable for educated folks to proudly proclaim they’re innumerate.
Physicist Richard Feynman described arithmetic as a “language, a proper logical approach of expressing relationships, [but] not only a language. Arithmetic is a language plus reasoning. … It’s … an enormous assortment of the outcomes of some individuals’ cautious thought and reasoning.”
Regulation, too, is a language, a logical approach of expressing authorized relationships, with its personal axioms, postulates and definitions within the type of constitutions, widespread legislation and laws, plus reasoning producing a set of “theorems” within the type of caselaw.
Legal professionals aren’t any worse than others at arithmetic (doubtless higher), as demonstrated in hundreds of authorized choices. Perpetuating the incorrect stereotype is a extreme miscalculation.
Lee A. Kraftchick labored as an assistant Miami-Dade County legal professional and chief of its labor and employment part for 32 years. Since retiring, he has labored half time as a labor and client arbitrator in Miami. He has a bachelor’s diploma in arithmetic.
ABAJournal.com is accepting queries for unique, considerate, nonpromotional articles and commentary by unpaid contributors to run within the Your Voice part. Particulars and submission pointers are posted at “Your Submissions, Your Voice.”
