Abstract
The legal profession has long claimed that there are process-based differences between legal reasoning — that is, the thinking and reasoning of lawyers and judges — and the reasoning of those without legal training. Whether those claims are sound, however, is a subject of considerable debate. We describe the importance of using categorization and analogy, following rules and authority, and the odd task of “fact-finding”, in the legal system. This paper aims to find how legal reasoning plays a part in the legal system from the perspective of judges and lawyers. It also examines the difference in legal reasoning in Civil as well as common law.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution–NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0) (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits remixing, adapting, and building upon the work for non-commercial use, provided the original work is properly cited.