<p>In order to be a great lawyer, do you need to be a great writer?</p>
<p>I just completed my first year of Engineering with a 3.9 GPA, so I’d like to think that I’m a fairly smart guy. However, I’d rate my writing skills -decent- at best. If I do pursue law, it will be in patent law. </p>
<p>Will my less than outstanding writing skills prevent me from doing well in law school, and prevent me from being a successful lawyer? I get irritated by the gung-ho Liberal Arts pre-laws that can get A’s on English essays without much effort. </p>
<p>I also took a practice LSAT without any preparation. I scored good, a 165. However, I got completely RUINED on the reading comprehension. I believe I got something like 15/26 in that section. I aced the logic games, and nearly aced the logical reasoning. I believe that part of the reason that I scored so low on reading comprehension is because I’ve NEVER read. I simply don’t read. I’ve always struggled with reading comprehension. In highschool I was a 75% student in regard to reading comprehension.</p>
<p>Am I too ‘right-brained’ for law? It might be a silly question; however, I’d be lying if I said that I wasn’t wondering if I’d make a good lawyer or not. It isn’t like I don’t have a million other career options in front of me (med, dent, business, engineer, etc.).</p>
<p>It certaily doesn’t hurt to be a good writer and to enjoy writing. Much of what lawyers do is research and writing. For example, litigators write briefs and motions, corporate attorneys draft and revise agreements and patent attorneys have to craft well written patent applications (writing well-crafted patents is an art), among other things. Writing accurately and artfully is mandatory in every legal position of which I am aware. </p>
<p>Good reading comprehension skills are necessary for success in law school. Though thinking on your feet is certainly an important part of a legal education (and law practice), so is reading voluminous texts for memory and understanding. The Socratic method can be brutal if you can’t recall and understand the nuances of the 60 pages you read in your torts textbook last night. Don’t forget that you are also reading 50 pages for your contracts class, 30 pages for property and 40 pages for constitutional law, all in the same night. </p>
<p>It sounds like you are a really bright guy. You can improve your reading comprehension skills. You can work on them … develop them. Perhaps studying for the LSAT may help you with that. That said, if you “simply don’t read”, and you don’t want to start, law school and practicing law is not for you. For that matter, I have to imagine that medical school would be quite a stretch as well. </p>
<p>You don’t have to be a great writer to practice law, including patent law, providing you are able to write clearly and accurately. However, if you wish to publish articles, particularly in legal publications, you will need to learn to be at least a good writer. Yes, that can be learned.</p>
<p>In law school you will spend a great deal of time reading, and that will also be true in most areas of legal practice, particularly in patent law. If it’s not something you enjoy doing or can do well, then you need to either improve your skills quickly or you should look into another career path.</p>
<p>“For that matter, I have to imagine that medical school would be quite a stretch as well.”</p>
<p>I don’t mind reading texts; I’m referring to literature. My sister’s a doctor, and no offense to her, but I’m just as capable as her in every way.</p>
<p>Thanks for the replies though. I have 3 years to sort this stuff out. I’m just going to do my best to get as many of the pre-reqs done as possible for as everything and keep my options open.</p>
<p>I hear that legal writing is different then writing a paper for an english class. legal writing is very dense and concise or to the point. you can usually learn how to write like this with experiance and practice. </p>
<p>Hey Russell7, lemme guess, you nailed the logic games part of the LSAT. I did to, most people who have science or engineering majors do well on that part of the lsat</p>
<p>If Law is practical writing, then I think that I could do fine. I can write good history papers, but when it comes down to explaining the effects of motifs and symbols in a poem… I’m pretty much useless.</p>
<p>You’re fine. You have the skills necessary, and once, or if, you go to law school, they will adequately prepare you for your legal career. They teach you how to think, and write “like a lawyer.” </p>
<p>Just improve that LSAT score, and maintain that average. Law schools love engineering majors - especially those that maintain a very, very high GPA, like yours.</p>
<p>“You’re fine. You have the skills necessary, and once…”</p>
<p>I am sure that after acing the logical section of the LSAT you’ll be somewhat reticent to listen to a high school senior:D. But I think, for all that it’s worth, that his comment was quite accurate. You don’t need to be a poet to go to LS – especially if patent is your goal.</p>
<p>All right guys, thanks a bunch. I’m really just trying to keep my career options open. I haven’t had the time to job shadow and find what I’m truly interested in, but Law is a huge possibility.</p>
<p>Your last comment: “if patent is your goal.” Are you implying that patent law requires far less writing ability than other fields?</p>
<p>Not really, I did not mean to imply that. However, I don’t think many of us have used poetry in intro to Physics or Chemistry or Differential Equations. If you or anyone on this forum has, please let me know, I’d be interested in doing a semester as a visiting student at your school;).</p>
<p>On the other hand, if you wanted to be a supreme court justice, well, then you could write things like, “As night-fall does not come at once, neither does oppression…It is in such twilight that we all must be aware of change in the air – however slight – lest we become victims of the darkness.”</p>
<ol>
<li>Inclined to keep one’s thoughts, feelings, and personal affairs to oneself. See synonyms at silent. </li>
<li>Restrained or reserved in style. </li>
<li>Reluctant; unwilling. <-----</li>
</ol>
<p>One usually does not consider multiple definitions independently. The sense of a word comprises such definitions in their entirety. Definition three is thus tilted toward 1 and 2.</p>
<p>Moreover, if the foregoing argument is insufficient, examining multiple reputable dictionaries for a definition and narrowing it down to what is common among them is a sound method for deriving the traditional definition. </p>
<p>The Oxford American Dictionary states:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Edit: And even if both of the foregoing arguments are insufficient. You still technically used the term incorrectly, since you did not know that your feeling for the term corresponded with the actual definition as is attested by your avowal of word misuse. In the current case, that your intention and actual definition roughly correspond is a coincidence.</p>
<p>There is no requirement that a person only use the primary definition of a word. While the tertiary definition is uncommon, that does not make it inappropriate. </p>
<p>As a poet-type, I personally prefer people to use words outside of their normal setting. One could read “reticent” to mean shy, in the sense of ‘shying away from’ the activity in question.</p>