Law professor Kim Wehle's latest book is 'How To Think Like a Lawyer — and Why'

Law professor Kim Wehle's latest book is 'How To Think Like a Lawyer — and Why'

Transcript¹

NPR's A Martinez talks to Wehle about her book which offers tips for how you might be able to avoid some big legal bills if you're ever involved in a lawsuit². She lays it out in a five-step process.

RACHEL MARTIN, HOST:

Law Professor Kim Wehle's latest book is sort of in the self-help genre³. It's called "How To Think Like A Lawyer - And Why." She offers tips for how you might be able to avoid some big legal bills if you're ever involved in a lawsuit. Our co-host, A Martinez, asked Kim Wehle to lay it all out in a five-step process she calls the BICAT method - BICAT.

KIM WEHLE: B is to break a problem down into smaller pieces. I is to identify our values. A lot of people think lawyers are really about winning all the time. But the law is based on a value system. And I suggest that people be very deliberate about what matters to them with whatever decision there is. C is to collect a lot of information. Thirty years ago, the challenge was finding information in a card catalog at the library. Now it's, how do we separate the good stuff from the bad stuff? A is to analyze⁴ both sides. Lawyers have to turn the coin over and exhaust counterarguments or we'll lose in court. And then T is, tolerate the fact that you won't get everything you want every time. My argument in the book is, we can feel good about a decision even if we don't get everything that we want. We have to make compromises.

A MARTINEZ, HOST:

So thinking like a lawyer without having to go through law school and studying for the bar exam?

WEHLE: Yeah. Studying for the bar exam is kind of a very difficult bear for a lot of people. But if you learn to think like a lawyer, like I tell my students, you'll get through the bar. The key is to look for questions and not answers. If you could answer every legal question with a Wikipedia search, there would be no reason to hire lawyers. Lawyers are hired because there are arguments on both sides, you know? Every Supreme⁵ Court decision that is split 6-3, 5-4, that means there were really strong arguments on both sides. So lawyers are trained to look for the gray areas, to look for the questions are not the answers. And if we kind of orient our thinking that way, I think we're less likely to shut down competing points of view.

MARTINEZ: Kim, what are some of the basic things that people can do - right? - as they gather facts about a particular story or a legal case that they might be trying to build, or an argument that they might be trying to build?

WEHLE: Well, you sort of seized in on Step 3, the collecting information piece. I think it's a new skill for all of us that we are overloaded⁶ with information into our phones. We have algorithms that somebody else developed that tailor the information that comes into our phones based on what the computer thinks we already believe. So we have to be very careful about the source of what you're getting, OK? Is this source neutral? Is this source really care about facts and not so much about an agenda?

And then, No. 2 - this is the beauty of social media and the internet - you can pull original sources. We can click on the indictment⁷. Click on the new bill that has been proposed in the United States Congress. Click on, you know, Dave Chappelle's very controversial show that got some people on the left very angry. Watch it yourself. Go to the original sources. And then the book explains ways that you can then sort through that information for yourself. Skills are empowering. Maybe as a replacement⁸ for sort of being empowered by being part of a team - a red team versus⁹ a blue team - that's been corrosive¹⁰, I think, in American politics and American society. But arming ourselves with good facts, that leads to self-determination.

MARTINEZ: Now, you've written two other books - "How To Read The Constitution" and "What You Need To Know About Voting" - along with this one, "How To Think Like A Lawyer - And Why." It kind of makes me think, Kim, that you feel that Americans might be lacking a basic level of civics education or understanding. So what is lacking when it comes to teaching civics or in civics discourse¹¹ today?

WEHLE: You really put your finger on exactly why I've written these three books. You know, studies have shown that around a third of Americans can't name the three branches of government. But if we don't understand our government, we don't know how to hold our government accountable. Democracies can't stay open if we've got elected leaders that are caring more about entrenching¹² their own power and misinformation than actually preserving democracy by the people. I think that's No. 1. No. 2 has to do with a value system. We talk about American values - reward for hard work, integrity, honesty. The same value system should apply to who we hire for government positions. And I think Americans have lost that.

There's a disconnect that's like, OK, I'm on my team - my team blue, my team red - when it comes to my elected leaders. But, you know, in my own life, I'm very careful about who gets to be part of the inner circle because I have a strong value system. Bring that same sense to bear at the voting booth. Don't vote for red versus blue. Vote for people that live your value system. Democracy is very fragile. In Ukraine, we are seeing regular people take up arms to protect their freedoms. In America, the attack on democracy is inside out. And instead of bearing arms in this moment, all we have to do is vote. It's getting harder and harder to do it. But just like the Ukrainians are fighting for their children's democracy, we need to do that as well. And we do that through informing ourselves with good information, tolerating competing points of view and voting - voting, voting, voting - to hold elected leaders accountable if they cross boundaries that matter to us in our own lives.

MARTINEZ: That's Kim Wehle, professor of law at the University of Baltimore. Her new book is "How To Think Like A Lawyer - And Why: A Common-Sense Guide To Everyday Dilemmas¹³." Kim, thanks a lot.

WEHLE: Thank you, A. I really enjoyed the chat.

1 transcript   

n.抄本，誊本，副本，肄业证书

参考例句：

• A transcript of the tapes was presented as evidence in court.一份录音带的文字本作为证据被呈交法庭。
• They wouldn't let me have a transcript of the interview.他们拒绝给我一份采访的文字整理稿。

2 lawsuit   

n.诉讼，控诉

参考例句：

• They threatened him with a lawsuit.他们以诉讼威逼他。
• He was perpetually involving himself in this long lawsuit.他使自己无休止地卷入这场长时间的诉讼。

3 genre   

n.(文学、艺术等的)类型，体裁，风格

参考例句：

• My favorite music genre is blues.我最喜欢的音乐种类是布鲁斯音乐。
• Superficially,this Shakespeare's work seems to fit into the same genre.从表面上看， 莎士比亚的这个剧本似乎属于同一类型。

4 analyze   

vt.分析，解析 (=analyse)

参考例句：

• We should analyze the cause and effect of this event.我们应该分析这场事变的因果。
• The teacher tried to analyze the cause of our failure.老师设法分析我们失败的原因。

5 supreme   

adj.极度的，最重要的；至高的，最高的

参考例句：

• It was the supreme moment in his life.那是他一生中最重要的时刻。
• He handed up the indictment to the supreme court.他把起诉书送交最高法院。

6 overloaded   

a.超载的，超负荷的

参考例句：

• He's overloaded with responsibilities. 他担负的责任过多。
• She has overloaded her schedule with work, study, and family responsibilities. 她的日程表上排满了工作、学习、家务等，使自己负担过重。

7 indictment   

n.起诉；诉状

参考例句：

• He handed up the indictment to the supreme court.他把起诉书送交最高法院。
• They issued an indictment against them.他们起诉了他们。

8 replacement   

n.取代，替换，交换；替代品，代用品

参考例句：

• We are hard put to find a replacement for our assistant.我们很难找到一个人来代替我们的助手。
• They put all the students through the replacement examination.他们让所有的学生参加分班考试。

9 versus   

prep.以…为对手，对；与…相比之下

参考例句：

• The big match tonight is England versus Spain.今晚的大赛是英格兰对西班牙。
• The most exciting game was Harvard versus Yale.最富紧张刺激的球赛是哈佛队对耶鲁队。

10 corrosive   

adj.腐蚀性的；有害的；恶毒的

参考例句：

• Many highly corrosive substances are used in the nuclear industry.核工业使用许多腐蚀性很强的物质。
• Many highly corrosive substances are used in the nuclear industry.核工业使用许多腐蚀性很强的物质。

11 discourse   

n.论文，演说；谈话；话语；vi.讲述，著述

参考例句：

• We'll discourse on the subject tonight.我们今晚要谈论这个问题。
• He fell into discourse with the customers who were drinking at the counter.他和站在柜台旁的酒客谈了起来。

12 entrenching   

v.用壕沟围绕或保护…( entrench的现在分词 )；牢固地确立…

参考例句：

• It has the same effect of entrenching the elite in corrupt economies. 它有着令精英陷入腐败经济的相同效应。 来自互联网
• This in entrenching on other domains. 这是在侵占别人的领土。 来自互联网

13 dilemmas   

n.左右为难( dilemma的名词复数 )；窘境，困境

参考例句：

• They dealt with their dilemmas by mixing perhaps unintentionally an explosive brew. 他们――也许是无意地――把爆炸性的佐料混合在一起，以此来应付困难处境。 来自辞典例句
• Ten years later we encountered the same dilemmas in Vietnam. 十年后，我们又在越南遇到了同样进退两难的局面。 来自辞典例句