When I was in law school, I thought becoming a good lawyer was primarily about knowing the law.
I thought the more cases I read, the more provisions I understood, and the more judgments I could analyse, the better lawyer I would become.
And to a certain extent, that was true.
Legal knowledge is the foundation of the profession.
But after spending time in practice, I began to understand something that law school could not fully teach me:
Knowing the law and knowing what to do with the law are two very different skills.
The first can be developed through books, judgments, research and education.
The second takes years.
It develops through clients, mistakes, negotiations, uncertainty, difficult decisions and the accumulated experience of seeing how legal advice actually affects people’s lives and businesses.
That second skill is what I now understand as legal judgment.
Knowing the Answer Is Not Always Enough
Imagine a client comes to me with a legal problem.
I research the issue.
I identify the relevant legislation.
I find the applicable judgments.
I understand the legal position.
I give the client the answer.
Technically, I have done my job.
But have I really helped the client?
Not necessarily.
The client may actually be asking a completely different question.
They may want to know whether they should pursue litigation.
Whether they should settle.
Whether they should sign the agreement.
Whether a particular risk is serious enough to delay a transaction.
Whether the cost of fighting is justified.
Whether a legally available option makes commercial sense.
Those questions cannot always be answered by simply identifying what the law permits.
They require judgment.
Legal Knowledge Tells Me What Is Possible
Legal knowledge gives me the framework.
It tells me what the statute says.
What the precedent establishes.
What the procedural requirements are.
What rights and obligations exist.
What risks may arise.
But legal judgment asks another question:
Given everything I know, what should we actually do?
That question is considerably harder.
There may be five legally available options.
Only two may be realistic.
One may be technically strongest but commercially impractical.
Another may be less certain legally but far more efficient.
A third may preserve a relationship that is strategically important.
There may not be a perfect answer.
There may only be a best available decision.
Recognising that difference is one of the biggest transitions from studying law to practising it.
Experience Changes the Questions You Ask
I think one of the clearest signs of professional growth is that the questions become better.
Earlier in my career, I might have started with:
“What does the law say?”
With experience, the questions become broader.
“What is the client actually trying to achieve?”
“What happens if we do nothing?”
“What is the downside of each option?”
“How likely is this risk to materialise?”
“What will this cost?”
“How much time will this take?”
“What happens commercially if we take this position?”
“Is this a legal problem or simply a business problem that happens to have a legal component?”
That last question can be particularly important.
Not every problem requires the most aggressive legal response.
Sometimes the best legal advice is to prevent a dispute.
Sometimes it is to negotiate.
Sometimes it is to walk away.
Sometimes it is to accept a manageable risk.
And sometimes it is to fight.
Knowing which one is appropriate is judgment.
The Law Does Not Always Give Us Certainty
Lawyers are often expected to provide certainty.
Clients ask:
“Can we do this?”
“Will we win?”
“Is this enforceable?”
“Is this legal?”
But the reality is that the law does not always provide a simple yes or no.
There can be conflicting authorities.
Unclear facts.
Changing regulations.
Different interpretations.
Procedural uncertainties.
Judicial discretion.
And circumstances that have never been tested in exactly the same way before.
A less experienced lawyer may feel uncomfortable with that uncertainty.
I certainly did.
There is a natural desire to find a definitive answer.
But legal judgment requires becoming comfortable with uncertainty without becoming careless about it.
The goal is not to pretend uncertainty does not exist.
The goal is to understand it, quantify it as far as possible, communicate it honestly and help the client make an informed decision despite it.
Good Legal Advice Is Not Always the Most Conservative Advice
This is another lesson that took time to appreciate.
There is a natural instinct for lawyers to focus on risk.
That makes sense.
We are trained to identify what can go wrong.
But if every piece of advice simply says, “Don’t do it because there is a risk,” we are not necessarily helping the client.
Business involves risk.
Transactions involve risk.
Innovation involves risk.
Even doing nothing involves risk.
Our role is not to eliminate every risk.
That is usually impossible.
Our role is to help the client understand the risk and decide whether it is acceptable.
Sometimes the correct advice is:
“This can be done, but here are the risks and the safeguards I would recommend.”
That is very different from simply saying:
“There is a risk, so don’t do it.”
Legal judgment is about understanding the difference.
Clients Also Teach Us Judgment
Some of the most important lessons about judgment do not come from legal authorities.
They come from clients.
Every client has a different tolerance for risk.
One may prioritise certainty.
Another may prioritise speed.
Another may be willing to spend heavily to protect a principle.
Another may care almost entirely about the commercial outcome.
The law may be the same.
The advice may need to be different.
That is why understanding the client matters so much.
I cannot give meaningful legal advice if I do not understand what the client is trying to accomplish.
A lawyer is not advising a legal textbook.
A lawyer is advising a person, organisation or business operating in the real world.
Judgment Also Means Knowing When to Say No
There are moments when professional judgment requires saying no.
No to a strategy that is legally weak.
No to an unrealistic deadline.
No to a client’s assumption.
No to an instruction that creates unacceptable risk.
No to taking on work that cannot be handled properly.
That can be uncomfortable.
Especially when you are trying to build a reputation.
Early in a career, there can be a temptation to demonstrate value by saying yes to everything.
Experience teaches something different.
Sometimes the most valuable thing a lawyer can do is stop a client from making a bad decision.
That requires confidence.
But more importantly, it requires judgment.
Judgment Cannot Be Built Entirely From a Classroom
You can teach someone how to research.
You can teach someone how to draft.
You can teach someone how to analyse a judgment.
You can teach someone the principles of contract law, constitutional law, intellectual property law or corporate law.
But there is a difference between knowing those principles and recognising which principle matters most in a particular situation.
That comes from exposure.
You see how negotiations unfold.
You watch how clients react to risk.
You learn what happens when a deadline is missed.
You see which contractual provisions actually become important when a relationship breaks down.
You understand the difference between a theoretical risk and a practical one.
You learn that the “best” argument is not always the argument that wins.
And gradually, patterns begin to emerge.
That is where experience becomes judgment.
I Am Still Building Mine
The interesting thing about legal judgment is that I don’t think anyone ever completely finishes developing it.
Every new matter presents a different combination of facts.
Every client brings a different perspective.
Every negotiation teaches something.
Every mistake exposes a blind spot.
And every unexpected situation adds another reference point for the future.
That is why I am increasingly cautious about describing myself—or anyone else—as having “mastered” legal judgment.
It is not a box that gets ticked after a certain number of years.
It is something that continues to evolve.
The more experience I gain, the more comfortable I become with saying:
“I need more information.”
“There are several ways to approach this.”
“This is legally possible, but I don’t think it is commercially sensible.”
“We could fight this, but I’m not convinced we should.”
“Here is the risk. Here is what we can do about it.”
Those statements may sound less definitive than simply giving an answer.
But they often represent better legal advice.
The Real Value of an Experienced Lawyer
When I think about what clients ultimately need from an experienced lawyer, I no longer think it is simply access to information.
Information is increasingly accessible.
Research tools are faster.
Technology can identify relevant material in seconds.
Artificial intelligence can help organise enormous amounts of information.
The real value increasingly lies in interpretation.
Context.
Prioritisation.
Strategy.
Judgment.
A client may be able to find ten possible answers online.
What they need from a lawyer is help understanding which answer actually matters to them.
That is where experience becomes valuable.
From “What Does the Law Say?” to “What Should We Do?”
Perhaps that is the simplest way I can describe the journey.
As a law student, I was trained to ask:
“What does the law say?”
As a lawyer, I have learned to ask:
“What does the law mean for this particular client, in these particular circumstances, and what should we do about it?”
The first question requires knowledge.
The second requires judgment.
And the distance between those two questions is where much of a lawyer’s professional growth happens.
I still read.
I still research.
I still learn.
I still encounter situations where I do not immediately know the answer.
But I no longer measure my growth only by how much law I know.
I measure it by the quality of the decisions I help people make.
Because ultimately, clients do not come to lawyers simply because they want someone who knows the law.
They come to us because they have a problem and need someone who can help them navigate it.
And that is why I believe the most valuable transition in a legal career is the transition from legal knowledge to legal judgment.
Knowing the law may make me a lawyer.
But knowing what to do with it is what takes years to learn.
Leave a Reply