What do you think?
Rate this book
The Tools of Argument: How the Best Lawyers Think, Argue, and Win
Joel Trachtman's book presents in plain and lucid terms the powerful tools of argument that have been honed through the ages in the discipline of law. If you are a law student or new lawyer, a business professional or a government official, this book will boost your analytical thinking, your foundational legal knowledge, and your confidence as you win arguments for your clients, your organizations or yourself.
200 pages, Paperback
First published July 25, 2013
1991 people are currently reading
2947 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 67 reviews
June 13, 2020
Should've read it in the first year of law school. Book - 4 stars. My timing - 0
March 1, 2019
This is generally good.
A few problems I found.
The author often uses terms that they do not define.
In places its not very readable but perhaps this is sacrificing clarity for precision, which is what lawyers do.
My main issue is that the author constantly gives examples that aren't really examples but just restatements of a principle, in the form of dialogue.
A few problems I found.
The author often uses terms that they do not define.
In places its not very readable but perhaps this is sacrificing clarity for precision, which is what lawyers do.
My main issue is that the author constantly gives examples that aren't really examples but just restatements of a principle, in the form of dialogue.
Read
September 1, 2022"Good legal writing, like other expository writing, should be parsimonious - including precisely what is necessary to reach the conclusion, and nothing more."
"By the way, well-written laws and contracts make it easy to identify the component conditions of responsibility; the clearest documents will specify them explicitly. Good legal drafting consists of clarity in expression of legal obligations, and legal obligations are always formulated as "if-then" statements. Good drafting identifies the "if" conditions clearly and should specify the "then" result with precision."
"In brief, ethical argument addresses the question of what should be, or what we should do, while legal argument generally addresses a wholly different question. Legal argument addresses the question of how we agreed earlier - in law or in contract - to address the problem that has now arisen."
"The pragmatic Chinese adage, 'same bed, different dreams', is aptly applied to the making of contracts or law by multiple authors."
"Furthermore, the effet utile principle requires an assumption that each word is meaningful - that there is no unnecessary repetition or surplus. So it has unintended results if people are sloppy or like to repeat themselves."
"A corollary of effet utile is the presumption of consistent usage: where a text uses the same term in multiple places, it is assumed to mean the same thing."
“Consistency is a bulwark against discrimination and corruption.”
“One rationale for this instinct is simply laziness, or, as some like to call it, the search for efficiency.”
“Actually, the search for ratio decidendi is guided by the principle of Occam’s razor, which suggests that the simples explanation of a phenomenon – the one that requires the fewest assumptions or conditions is likely to be the correct one.”
“What does it mean to follow earlier decisions? Since each decision deals with a new factual setting, what must be followed is the ratio decidendi. Remember that the common law system prizes consistency.”
“More importantly, obiter dictum is not part of the ratio decidendi, so consistency of treatment does not require respect for this earlier statement – it is not part of the treatment.”
“Note that each footnote might be the loose thread that, if pulled, can destroy the entire argument.”
“This is the core of legal analysis: determine the elements of the claim, and then examine each element separately to determine whether each is satisfied.
“Abraham Lincoln, a great lawyer as well as a great President, was fond of asking, ‘If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have?’ When his victim would innocently answer ‘five’, he would reply that the victim had it wrong: ‘Calling a tail a leg does not make it a leg’. Making a presumption does not make the fact presumed so.”
“Point: My expert opinion is that the defendant took inadequate care to prevent the injuries that the plaintiff sustained. Counterpoint: You are a socialist.”
“It is certainly disruptive if legal rules or judicial decisions try to be literary at the expense of precision.”
“The ancient Chinese saying states: ‘faintest ink over sharpest memory’.”
“Lawyers serve as the voice of skepticsm in all sorts of transactions, be they loan agreements, joint venture agreements, or sales contracts. Lawyers are experts in fights. The lawyer asks, ‘What happens if this is all a failure, what happens if it turns out that you are defrauding me, what happens if there is a nuclear disster?’.”
“In preparing for an argument, the careful lawyer will examine the opponent’s chain of syllogisms and determine the level of support for each link. Where there is a weak link of assumption without knowledge, the lawyer will exert pressure.”
“If a lawyer loses the trust of a decision-maker in one dispute, the lawyer’s ability to persuade that decision-maker in subsequent disputes will be compromised. This is the lesson of the story of ‘The Boy Who Cried Wolf’. Furthermore, decision-makers, be they judges, bosses or prospective partners, do talk to one another. One of their favorite topics of discussion is the reputation in the community of legal advocate for telling the truth.”
“Ethical considerations aside, if you hope to be a persuasive advocate for your own interests or the interests of others, lying to win the argument in which you are currently engaged is not worth the price of losing one’s reputation for truthfulness.
"By the way, well-written laws and contracts make it easy to identify the component conditions of responsibility; the clearest documents will specify them explicitly. Good legal drafting consists of clarity in expression of legal obligations, and legal obligations are always formulated as "if-then" statements. Good drafting identifies the "if" conditions clearly and should specify the "then" result with precision."
"In brief, ethical argument addresses the question of what should be, or what we should do, while legal argument generally addresses a wholly different question. Legal argument addresses the question of how we agreed earlier - in law or in contract - to address the problem that has now arisen."
"The pragmatic Chinese adage, 'same bed, different dreams', is aptly applied to the making of contracts or law by multiple authors."
"Furthermore, the effet utile principle requires an assumption that each word is meaningful - that there is no unnecessary repetition or surplus. So it has unintended results if people are sloppy or like to repeat themselves."
"A corollary of effet utile is the presumption of consistent usage: where a text uses the same term in multiple places, it is assumed to mean the same thing."
“Consistency is a bulwark against discrimination and corruption.”
“One rationale for this instinct is simply laziness, or, as some like to call it, the search for efficiency.”
“Actually, the search for ratio decidendi is guided by the principle of Occam’s razor, which suggests that the simples explanation of a phenomenon – the one that requires the fewest assumptions or conditions is likely to be the correct one.”
“What does it mean to follow earlier decisions? Since each decision deals with a new factual setting, what must be followed is the ratio decidendi. Remember that the common law system prizes consistency.”
“More importantly, obiter dictum is not part of the ratio decidendi, so consistency of treatment does not require respect for this earlier statement – it is not part of the treatment.”
“Note that each footnote might be the loose thread that, if pulled, can destroy the entire argument.”
“This is the core of legal analysis: determine the elements of the claim, and then examine each element separately to determine whether each is satisfied.
“Abraham Lincoln, a great lawyer as well as a great President, was fond of asking, ‘If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have?’ When his victim would innocently answer ‘five’, he would reply that the victim had it wrong: ‘Calling a tail a leg does not make it a leg’. Making a presumption does not make the fact presumed so.”
“Point: My expert opinion is that the defendant took inadequate care to prevent the injuries that the plaintiff sustained. Counterpoint: You are a socialist.”
“It is certainly disruptive if legal rules or judicial decisions try to be literary at the expense of precision.”
“The ancient Chinese saying states: ‘faintest ink over sharpest memory’.”
“Lawyers serve as the voice of skepticsm in all sorts of transactions, be they loan agreements, joint venture agreements, or sales contracts. Lawyers are experts in fights. The lawyer asks, ‘What happens if this is all a failure, what happens if it turns out that you are defrauding me, what happens if there is a nuclear disster?’.”
“In preparing for an argument, the careful lawyer will examine the opponent’s chain of syllogisms and determine the level of support for each link. Where there is a weak link of assumption without knowledge, the lawyer will exert pressure.”
“If a lawyer loses the trust of a decision-maker in one dispute, the lawyer’s ability to persuade that decision-maker in subsequent disputes will be compromised. This is the lesson of the story of ‘The Boy Who Cried Wolf’. Furthermore, decision-makers, be they judges, bosses or prospective partners, do talk to one another. One of their favorite topics of discussion is the reputation in the community of legal advocate for telling the truth.”
“Ethical considerations aside, if you hope to be a persuasive advocate for your own interests or the interests of others, lying to win the argument in which you are currently engaged is not worth the price of losing one’s reputation for truthfulness.
June 2, 2017
This book is good for a new law student. I appreciate the 'point and counter-point' sections as it shows that the author is able to think flexibly. However, I wish some of the ideas, such as 'passive virtue' & 'passive aggression', had been expanded upon. I'm glad that I was exposed to the ideas but I couldn't transform them into anything practical as the explanations were too short and vague.
March 27, 2018
Very informative book. The books I've read on how to argue tend to give broad, impractical info like "be confident" and stuff of that sort, but this one has a lot of practical how to information. Cool info and made me have a greater appreciation for the profession and to law as a whole. Awesome read.
June 2, 2022
A well-written and enjoyable read. Trachtman effectively packed this book with tons of short topics and many insightful takeaways. I found the section on text interpretation to be a bit dry, although that is more so a knock on the topic as opposed to the author. Overall, I’d recommend this book to anyone interested in law.
January 12, 2025
This is a great book for pre-law students, mock trial competitors, and those who are about to start law school. Almost everything in the book I learned in my first semester of law school (contracts and civil procedure played the largest role in my understanding of these concepts). But I think I would have really appreciated the content had I read it prior to starting classes.
April 23, 2023
This was a great read to see and understand how lawyers think. This is not just for lawyers, but applicable for people in all areas of work.
June 16, 2017
I found the book to be a memory refresher. Partly because the majority of contents were studied at law school, and due to it being my job. The author guides the reader towards a fact, that lawyers (most law proffesions in fact) think in a particular way, that differs from others. This way of thinking, is inspired by mental tools that partitions variables and constants in any legal issue into X, Y and Z, and from that point, conclude the X result.
This way of thinking is a mental upgrade to be honest, with time and practice, it reforms your personality into a ruthless being that parks his emotions 10 miles away.
(Pardon my English)
This way of thinking is a mental upgrade to be honest, with time and practice, it reforms your personality into a ruthless being that parks his emotions 10 miles away.
(Pardon my English)
January 23, 2022
Lawyer understands laymen can do without
When I read the reviews I was lead to believe that it began with a legal overview and then moved towards explaining the fundamental “Tools of Argument”. The book never moved away from legal case management and the burden of proof fell on the author to prove otherwise which regrettably did not happen. Any practice lawyer would have found this elementary and most layman would find it simply impractical.
When I read the reviews I was lead to believe that it began with a legal overview and then moved towards explaining the fundamental “Tools of Argument”. The book never moved away from legal case management and the burden of proof fell on the author to prove otherwise which regrettably did not happen. Any practice lawyer would have found this elementary and most layman would find it simply impractical.
November 5, 2022
This is an accessible and well-presented take on the logic of the common law and how to navigate it. My only regret is not reading it sooner. I will definitely be referring back to it for years to come.
July 8, 2019
Trachtman has given us a really good roadmap of different forms of argumentatin that lawyers use and provided some really good examples. Any law student or lawyer who reads this will recognzie thatwe dealt with a number of the types of argument he discusses in L1, such as the interpretation of statutes and precedent. However, he did cover a few things we didn't discuss in law school, at least not on any of the classes I've taken, most notably procedural arguments. His point that we tend to formulate our arguments around the structural pathways we follow in legal procedures is a really interesting idea and is becoming recognized more broadly in the legal community. For example, in the common law system, we use an advesarial system and structure our legal thinking and argumentation around this idea. However, in recent years many jurists have been questioning whether the advesarial system is necessarily the best way to handle certain types of stuations, which has led to the establishment of more collaborative, inquisitorial style, mental health courts and community based sentencing circles in aboriginal communities. In both cases, the differeing court structures has led to differing approaches to argumentation. This is a really cool idea that demands to be explored further.
In sum, this is a great resource for law students and lawyers as either a refresher or food for thought and I would highly recommend it.
4/5 Stars
In sum, this is a great resource for law students and lawyers as either a refresher or food for thought and I would highly recommend it.
4/5 Stars
April 11, 2022
In this book, Trachtman elucidates a panoply of wide-ranging topics that are key to rendering an effective legal argument. The salient points that are pivotal in making fool-proof arguments include, following a robust laid down procedure and precedence (rationes decidendi), making effective interpretation, and relying on unchallengeable facts. All these points are discussed in this book with easily comprehendible illustrations.
The sign of a highly effective legal practitioner is to make a sound interpretation that has the potential to sway the direction of the judgements. The canons of interpretations discussed in this book could be strategically deployed to get the desired results.
Occam's Razor is another prudent legal concept that is outlined by the author which could be perused in every walk of life to avoid convoluted and complex arguments and reach meaningful resolutions of disputes.
Overall a good book that will assist you to horn up your argumentative skills like that of a lawyer.
The sign of a highly effective legal practitioner is to make a sound interpretation that has the potential to sway the direction of the judgements. The canons of interpretations discussed in this book could be strategically deployed to get the desired results.
Occam's Razor is another prudent legal concept that is outlined by the author which could be perused in every walk of life to avoid convoluted and complex arguments and reach meaningful resolutions of disputes.
Overall a good book that will assist you to horn up your argumentative skills like that of a lawyer.
March 14, 2024
"The Tools of Argument" provides a layperson overview of many rhetorical and legal (procedural and substantive) tools used in effective legal advocacy.
Joel P. Trachtman knows how to explain these terms in a concise way, but the scope of the book is limited to a sort of introductory glossary for terms like standing, jurisdiction, etc.
Trachtman provides a relevant example or two for each term, but Section 9 (dealing with the mindset of a lawyer) could use more elaboration and connection with the previous 8 sections covering the terms of the book.
In a sense, this book is like an annotated legal dictionary. It does not offer the same scale of terms, but each term covered is contextualized through considerations of application and real-life examples.
I recommend this book as a good starting point for thinking about the proverbial "building blocks" constituting effective advocacy, but not to be taken as a definitive overview of the legal profession (which, in all fairness, it does not claim to be).
Joel P. Trachtman knows how to explain these terms in a concise way, but the scope of the book is limited to a sort of introductory glossary for terms like standing, jurisdiction, etc.
Trachtman provides a relevant example or two for each term, but Section 9 (dealing with the mindset of a lawyer) could use more elaboration and connection with the previous 8 sections covering the terms of the book.
In a sense, this book is like an annotated legal dictionary. It does not offer the same scale of terms, but each term covered is contextualized through considerations of application and real-life examples.
I recommend this book as a good starting point for thinking about the proverbial "building blocks" constituting effective advocacy, but not to be taken as a definitive overview of the legal profession (which, in all fairness, it does not claim to be).
September 7, 2022
This book isn’t necessarily for the faint of heart. There’s a lot of legal lingo throughout the book and in all honesty, it took the first 30ish pages to get to the meaty goodness - but once you’re there, consider yourself hooked. I genuinely loved all of the examples or points/counter-points etc, and I felt like I could apply these “tools of argument” to everyday scenarios in my life. This book is especially good for analytical and critical thinkers - I certainly walked away feeling like I could storm into Harvey Specter’s office and be hired on the spot. However, take your time reading it and really reflect on the different examples made. I probably read this book twice over because I kept stopping and re-reading to really grasp the concepts. Definitely a must-read for law students of any sort.
August 6, 2019
Interesting straight to the point short book for the intellectual layperson, fresh lawyer or law student. The author gives helpful examples of arguments and counter-arguments that lawyers may be faced with it. My-self being in middle management I picked up, among other items, that: Healthy skepticism IS necessary; ensure you probe, probe, probe asking lots of questions for the assurances/ info needed, written agreements no matter how basic they are a must/ think ahead - add specific clauses no matter how ludicrous they may sound; don’t sell your soul keep your moral compass, if you’ve been found to be a liar/untrustworthy among the circle of peers/opponents/and importantly clients its time to move far away
December 31, 2020
Pretty cool book, written in a very simple manner, understanding it is not complicated. Kudos to the author for that. Transmitting knowledge in a easy-to-comprehend way is not easy at all, and he achieves it here big time. Great sights on different matters, and as a professional I'm aware of many of these techniques and viewpoints, but the book gave me new approaches to understand negotiation and argumentation. I highly recommend this book to any Law student and even to lawyers. It's never too late to check out this book and absorb this valuable content.
June 22, 2021
Not exactly an exhilarating read. The main point: laws are rules that fit into “if-then” statements; in a given case, identify the facts and circumstances, test them against the rule/law (or find a more relevant rule/law and assume that burden of proof), and explain why/why shouldn’t the law apply here; oh, and strive to be consistent and to apply the effects of others’ consistency to your synthesis.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
August 7, 2021
Joel Trachtman compiles a useful, non-technical book for the "layperson" to understand the tools and approaches to arguments that are taught in law schools. Having these presented in a clear way, with both easy to understand examples provides a great background.
Joel does come off touting his credentials a bit and it takes on a somewhat condescending tone at times. The book could use additional examples to be more engaging for the reader.
Joel does come off touting his credentials a bit and it takes on a somewhat condescending tone at times. The book could use additional examples to be more engaging for the reader.
July 25, 2023
This felt like a mixed bag of advice wrapped in one but the bad thing was that the advice lacked in terms of giving a complete primer on all of the aspects. A bunch of arguments were suited for critical thinking in daily life, while some of the others felt much more suited for formal debates and courtroom cases. The lack of good organization rendered it partly fruitless. Nevertheless, I have a much more clear idea of a bunch of legal terms now.
3.25 stars/5
3.25 stars/5
March 28, 2019
Not for everyone... but an excellent book if you are a lawyer, a debater, or often find yourself in an argument. It's a list, broken down and explained. "You can argue this, if that doesn't work, try option B, or C." Probably not a relaxing read... but a very useful tool.
Vital reading if making or breaking arguments are part of your day job.
Vital reading if making or breaking arguments are part of your day job.
February 26, 2020
Well written, well worth the read
As someone interested in going to law school, this provides exactly what I was looking for.
That is; an introduction as to what law is, what it isn't, why it is and more importantly, how lawyers think.
If I could give it 6 stars, I definitely would!
As someone interested in going to law school, this provides exactly what I was looking for.
That is; an introduction as to what law is, what it isn't, why it is and more importantly, how lawyers think.
If I could give it 6 stars, I definitely would!
November 8, 2020
If you are halfway through Law School, brimming with ejusdem generis, post hoc ergo propter hoc and obiter dictum, and can tell your Brandeis brief from a collateral estoppel, this book will get you salivating.
If you’re an average Joe, there isn’t much for you here -even if the author tells you so. He’s a lawyer who wants you to buy his book.
If you’re an average Joe, there isn’t much for you here -even if the author tells you so. He’s a lawyer who wants you to buy his book.
February 24, 2022
I thoroughly enjoyed it. This is the kind of book, that, as the author addressed these topics span far beyond the scope of “lawyering”.
This is the kind of book that should be standard part of a high school curriculum. Teaching students to and how to think and effectively communicate gets little to no attention in the classroom.
This is the kind of book that should be standard part of a high school curriculum. Teaching students to and how to think and effectively communicate gets little to no attention in the classroom.
March 23, 2020
Well presented hypotheses and cases of arguments not just restricted for the legal eyed. Does get heavy on the concept where a few more case studies might have helped, to re inforce mental translation to application in the real more general world rather than be legal centric
August 11, 2021
Learn How Lawyers Think
Reading this book really gave me a good understanding how lawyers thing. Law is more then just referencing cases and court decisions. It's also about how to present a case.
Reading this book really gave me a good understanding how lawyers thing. Law is more then just referencing cases and court decisions. It's also about how to present a case.
December 31, 2021
This book is basically a rundown of maybe the first semester of law school. It’s a good refresher for an attorney, but I don’t see how it would be useful to a non-lawyer as it seemed to use technical terms without a full explanation for understanding.
November 11, 2022
I like this book.
I rated it as four stars because I was looking for something more practical; this book is more lawyer focus, and it's an excellent attribute, but I was looking for something more compelling for everyday use.
I rated it as four stars because I was looking for something more practical; this book is more lawyer focus, and it's an excellent attribute, but I was looking for something more compelling for everyday use.
January 1, 2023
The book describes the legal framework used by professional lawyers in simple and understandable language with lots of examples. However, I have my doubts about the practicality of using this framework in a 'normal' work environment to argue. Having said that, I think the book offers many great examples to question the validity of a statement made during an argument.
My main takeaway from the book is described in capital three: if you want to increase your chances of winning an argument, you better prepare and write down your standpoint on the subject in a clear way. In other words, once you have clear thoughts on the subject arguing about it becomes easier.
My main takeaway from the book is described in capital three: if you want to increase your chances of winning an argument, you better prepare and write down your standpoint on the subject in a clear way. In other words, once you have clear thoughts on the subject arguing about it becomes easier.
June 16, 2023
Best thing abt being on vacation is that I can actually settle down and read, otherwise I can’t focus 😭. Very good book, teaches a lot of law vocabulary and I enjoyed the breakdown of processes in every step of the law process
Displaying 1 - 30 of 67 reviews