Lawyer Skills

[Hrothgar]

Originally Posted by Figleaf23

Law, obviously, and Research. All others would be optional: Public Speaking, Writing, Administration, Savoir Faire, Accounting, Finance, Acting, Area Knowledge, Detect Lies, Current Affairs, Diplomacy, Fast-talk, Intel Analysis, Interrogation, Politics.

I would say this is a pretty complete list, but I want to go a step further and categorize it, as well as add a few myself.

Must-Have skills: Law
Fairy standard skills: Research, Public Speaking, Diplomacy
Tricky lawyer skills: Fast-talk, Acting, Enthrallment, Psychology (might help getting into opponents head)
Criminal layer/Persecutuer: Interrogation, Detect Lies, (Maybe Savoir-Faire (Police) to represent being an ex-cop)
Judge/Exec at Law firm: Administration
Financial Lawyer: Accounting, Finance,

I think lawyers who use skills like fast-talk, acting, and even enthrallment would be good to represent lawyers who use their jury's emotional response to win a case. Not all lawyers use this method, but there are definitely a few who do.

And of course a few advantages that would be fitting/helpful for a lawyer, though not necessary, would be some charisma, higher wealth levels, contacts (police and even criminal contacts seem fitting), voice, extra languages, and Ally (Secretary), and maybe even some favor perks.

Disadvantages depend wholly on the personality. There are very honest and dishonest lawyers, so that will give a large array of options.

[Ulzgoroth]

If you're going for the full breadth, my understanding is that patent lawyers can require considerable technical knowledge in their area of specialization.

[Dinadon]

Originally Posted by Hrothgar

I think lawyers who use skills like fast-talk, acting, and even enthrallment would be good to represent lawyers who use their jury's emotional response to win a case. Not all lawyers use this method, but there are definitely a few who do.

Isn't Enthrallment only appropiate for cinematic lawyers? Plus don't they have a whole number of constraints (mainly time required) that would make them hard to use in a court room?

[Pmandrekar]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

If you're going for the full breadth, my understanding is that patent lawyers can require considerable technical knowledge in their area of specialization.

This is very true. In my company, we have a few patent lawyers who received a Bachelor's degree in an appropriate science field (Genetics, Molecular Biology, etc.) and then went to Law school for a proper law degree.

So, lawyers who work with criminals, or sort through forensic evidence are likely to pick up some level of Criminology, or Forensics. There are lawyers on the forensic DNA circuit (I work in forensic DNA research) who clearly understand the basics of forensic DNA technology, including esp. the population biology behind it.

Barry Scheck shows up at some of the same conferences that I go to, in fact.

-P.

[Pmandrekar]

There are plenty of examples of lawyers who are motivated primarily by the desire to do right by society. I've got a friend who is taking a lower salary than he could to work as a Public Defender in a large city, which means that most of his clients are likely to be the most needful of protection--whether or not they committed the crime that they have been accused of.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innocence_Project
Founded and run (mostly) by lawyers. I think that getting the wrongly convicted out of prison, and ensuring that the science supports that decision is a *good thing*. Don't you?

-P.

[sjard]

Lets keep it civil here please

Edited out trollish post and quotes of this post.

[Rocket Man]

Originally Posted by Lord Carnifex

Bluffing during plea-bargin negotiations might very well be Acting too - conveying to the defense team that you have a stronger case than you actually do, or conveying to the prosecution that your defense is stronger than it is. Fast-Talk will get you a certain distance, but Acting is probably better than for the long-term machinations.

True, but with modern discovery rules (at least in the American court system), this only gets you so far. When the other side is allowed to see your list of planned witnesses and evidence -- in fact, *required* to see it -- it's a lot harder to fake the strength of your case.

[Akicita]

Originally Posted by Rocket Man

True, but with modern discovery rules (at least in the American court system), this only gets you so far. When the other side is allowed to see your list of planned witnesses and evidence -- in fact, *required* to see it -- it's a lot harder to fake the strength of your case.

Harder, but not impossible. You can always pad your list with more people than you really intend to call, for one.

[Pmandrekar]

Originally Posted by Akicita

Harder, but not impossible. You can always pad your list with more people than you really intend to call, for one.

Yup. To what degree is this Acting versus Intimidation skill, I wonder?

I always got the sense that essentially saying that "here's the evidence for what I intend to charge you with" but also, note that "here's all this other stuff I might throw on the table, and I have the evidence behind it, but since I haven't put it on the table, I don't have to actually show you the evidence" is an act of Intimidation. You're intimidating the target to make a lesser plea, even if your position may not be very strong on the other charges.

-P.

[Infornific]

Originally Posted by Pmandrekar

Yup. To what degree is this Acting versus Intimidation skill, I wonder?

I always got the sense that essentially saying that "here's the evidence for what I intend to charge you with" but also, note that "here's all this other stuff I might throw on the table, and I have the evidence behind it, but since I haven't put it on the table, I don't have to actually show you the evidence" is an act of Intimidation. You're intimidating the target to make a lesser plea, even if your position may not be very strong on the other charges.

-P.

It might be intimidation but it's not really the intimidation skill. The description of the Intimidation skill (B202) states: "The essence of Intimidation is to convince the subject that you are able and willing, perhaps even eager, to do something awful to him." The rest of the description implies that "something awful" is along the the lines of breaking knee caps. And to be honest unless the opposition was very foolish, they'd probably assume the reason for not bringing in evidence is because it's not likely to be useful.

- DW