Thinking Like a Legal Professional. (Posted by Gabe)

Thanks to your recent Equal Protection Writing Assignment, each of you paralegal students has had the chance to think through a specific fact pattern and weigh all of the considerations that went in to answering it. Here's a question I received on that issue:

For this paper-- my initial thought is that any rdinance may not designate separate areas within the establishment for race (suspect class), but for homosexuals? Since that's not specifically in the chart, does that make them a non-suspect class applying rational basis test, or perhaps it's a fundamental right issue (to be able to attend business establishments without being segregated?). The person in the paper is claiming that their rights are on the level of a suspect class, which I don't think it is, so I guess that is where most of the discussion will take place....I'm just not sure about how we're supposed to think through these things--biblically vs. equal protection chart.

That is a great question, and one that you should be learning to answer as you progress through this course. In law school they call it "thinking like a lawyer," but it is no less important as a paralegal. Paralegals often have the first chance to interact with a client and guide the thinking of the attorney, and the paralegal's ability to think through the fact situations and come to a conclusion is vital to success in the profession.

No legal fact scenario occurs in a vacuum. By this, I mean that the legal professional can almost never simply look at the law and come to a conclusion to do his or her job right. It is important to recognize that often you must start with extra-legal reasoning, which in the case of a Christian, starts with God's Word. There should be absolutely no shame in doing that, although obviously there is a balancing act--the client is paying for legal advice, not counseling, and as professionals we have the responsibility to provide legal representation.

Because it is a balancing act, there is no "right" answer. Every fact scenario is different, and every client has different personal needs and goals from the legal confrontation. If you reasoned through this fact pattern on a purely Constitutional basis, you were not wrong. But if you took the time to reason through the "worldview" behind the contentions, you have begun the process of thinking like a legal professional.

You may disagree with the contention that homosexuality should be protected by the Equal Protection Clause, but obviously the authors of the letter in this fact pattern disagree. Simply telling them that they were wrong won't change anyone's mind, and won't influence a court. Why, then, does the Constitution agree with your worldview? Why should a court follow your line of legal reasoning, instead of theirs? And what can you provide to persuade those with a different worldview than yours?

While I have no desire to give you an "answer" to the fact pattern--and would not be helping you if I did!--I hope that this helps as you prepare yourselves to be effective paralegals.