Lawyers who browse current legal literature, case law and book publications may have asked themselves the question: who will read all of this? The answer to this question has long been: no one will read. Of course, in some ways this is the nature of utilitarian legal literature, since it is largely not meant to be read, but only to support our views on matters on which we already have a view.
However, this situation forces a change in the functioning of a professional lawyer, the more so as the necessary literature will not be read not only by advisers but also by judges. They, too, have become accustomed to the fact that in every case lawyers bring any number of judgments and views to the court to support their theses. And they have to somehow isolate themselves from this intellectual noise, make a choice in order to be able to make sensible decisions.
And here we come to the paradoxical conclusion that the actual non-assimilation of legal literature should lead to the restoration of the meaning of the lawyer’s own opinion, original arguments and arguments. Because these tools cannot be replaced with borrowings that usually refer to unique, individual factual states.
Such a change in the approach to legal argumentation, even if it was to take place gradually, may restore the lost sense to court decisions, because ultimately each case is individual and individual. It is worth realizing this opportunity and trying to take advantage of it.