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.

 Download Full Paper