The means by which legal rules are applied occurs through many different avenues, nearly all of which are dependent on the nature of the law being applied. As a typically rule, the two major categories of criminal law and civil law are privy to two different forms of oversight.  This is called an indictment.

 

In civil laws, the oversight is undertaken primarily on the part of each of the parties involved in the dispute, and their legal representatives, because the aspects of the dispute can be found to be under the nature of a private offense. When a private offense had been found to have occurred, the offended party and their representatives file a suit against the other party, who becomes the defendant in the proceedings. 

The suit is taken before a civil judge, who determines whether it has legal merits to proceed. If a suit is taken to court, unlike a criminal trial where culpability must be found “beyond a reasonable doubt” (meaning that the evidence must establish criminal responsibility a matter of legal fact), in a civil action, the plaintiff has to establish a burden of proof that the defendant has wronged them. If the do so, they are entitled to damages based on a selection of predetermined parameters.

 

It should be noted that criminal law and civil law are not always mutually exclusive in their ability to effect one another, as a civil case can be executed based on the findings and evidence obtained by a criminal case, or vice versa. An example would be in a case of criminal negligence that leads to death. 

The party responsible for the negligence would be answerable to the law because of the violation of legal statutes, and also potentially liable to a civil action (likely under tort law) undertaken by the family of the dead person. If the individual is or is not found to be criminally negligent, that could be applied to the civil proceedings or not. However, criminal punishment will never be enacted by a civil court, nor could financial damages to an injured party be implemented by a criminal one.

 

Of course, implementation of penalties are enforced by the court through penalty of law in either criminal or civil rulings, which are implemented by an enforcement agency on the behalf of the court.

Identifying the accurate legal rules of a given legal proceeding seems like an obvious element to legal analysis and argument, but it must be remembered that the legal system is a vast organism, comprising numerous categories and jurisdictions, and is always in an ongoing state of flux due to changes in interpretation facilitated by arguments and precedents. Enacting any legal action involves an accurate identification of the rules of law applicable to a situation, because inaccurate provision of an argument on the wrong rule of law will invalidate the argument immediately, regardless of how convincing or supported the argument is.

 

Again, this may seem like a fairly basic means of which to base an action, and in many regards, it is. Sometimes, the determination of a legal action could be a simple as viewing a law and determining that there is ground to pursue a legal action because the law has been violated. 

However, where it can become somewhat tricky is through the determination of legal precedents, where interpretations of a law can have been established through a pre-existing court case, and that interpretation has superseded the written law, meaning that the legal action may be invalid or need to be mended based on the new precedent. “Clashes of precedent” in these situation are not uncommon, where two sides of a persuasive legal argument can use differing precedents to argue for their interpretation of the law, at which point it is up to the court to determine which law has greater validity (usually it is a judge would make the determination).

 

Complicating these terms further is that the legal system is broken into numerous different sections and subsections, namely between criminal and civil law, and within those into numerous different subcategories. 

Within criminal law, understanding the rule of law can mean making a determination of the nature of law that has been violated, such as whether an action that led to a death was either negligence or falls under the auspices of homicide. In civil law, this could involve deciding whether an action is applicable under the rules of tort law, like malpractice, or under contract or even statute law.

It is in these determinations of applicable laws that the process of legal argument and analysis becomes incredibly difficult and complex, and it is for this reason most legal firms and organizations with legal departments often have a support teams of paralegals, whose job it is to research legal rules and rulings, and provide them to the lawyers who oversee them, who then determine if the argument is worth following up on. 

Legal briefs are then compiled, which consist of complex written arguments that have to often be as dialectical a possible, meaning they must account for counterarguments, reinterpretations, and misinterpretations that can undermine a legal argument. Therefore, legal arguments become complex means by which all loopholes have to be closed and sealed before savvy attorneys and their legal staff can present them to any legal body, either to a court or opposing legal organization.

When going into a specialization such as law, it must be understood that the practice of law has no similarities to the “legal entertainment” broadcasted on television. Predominantly, it is not based on courtroom theatrics, investigation of crimes, various forms of drama, or a certain level of glamor. It is based on arguments, and generally not of a verbal nature, but of a written one, unless proceeding to trial. The study of law is one predicated entirely on research, and then the ability to use and apply that research to provide a strong argument for your legal point of view. 

 

Laws entails more than just being able to read and understand a collective set of rules, the writing in its own is embedded with heavy vocabulary and legal terms which may differentiate from the same terms, with another use. The law is always changing as a result of legal reinterpretations by the courts, and through the enactment of new pieces of legislation by governing bodies. It is always expanding, always evolving, and always being challenged. 

 

This is when research becomes key to the study of law, research forms the basis of nearly all arguments, providing support and conjecture to mechanics of any thesis or central point. Any argument must be based on more than just the reading of a law, as well as legal precedents that effect the determination of that law. Legal arguments at their core, are opinions which are based upon evidence that can be physical or testimonial, but also supported by preexisting rhetoric, in the forms of others’ opinions and arguments; especially when they have been found to have been argued successfully elsewhere (this forms the foundation of the importance of precedent).

 

The extent by which laws are classified are also vast, and it is rare that any individual practices outside of his realm of legal expertise. Generally, the classifications of law breaks down to two main categories, criminal and civil. Criminal law pertains to laws that govern behavior in society, where offenses to the law are viewed as offenses to the state, and civil law, which pertains to disagreements between two parties that must be remedied through legal recourse.

 

It is due to these complexities that have made the legal profession that is generally so lucrative in real terms for many people, and so consistent in its ability to be employable. It’s what makes the study of the law so rewarding, in many respects, because its rewards must undeniably be earned through study and dedication.

 

The analysis of facts forms the groundwork for which any legal argument can be undertaken, as it involves ascertaining the ability of evidence, whether it is physical or testimonial, to be able to determine, in the eyes of the law, provable facts upon which any legal decision must be made. Identifying the rule of law that is relevant in a given situation is vital to successful completion of a legal argument, and is far more complicated a process than one would initially imagine.

The means by which legal reporting is completed also varies not only the nature of the argument, but the means and arena which that argument will be made part of the public record.

 

The term “legal analysis” is one that can be applied broadly across the entire legal spectrum, but it is based off the concrete understanding that the application and use of law is based almost entirely on interpretation. Laws vary across the spectrum of criminal, civil, corporate, or political law, and vary within its many categories in complexity. A law could be a simple as a sentence or as long as a book. All laws are predicated on finding a consensus on how they are to be interpreted, and sometimes this calls for arguments to be made that support a particular interpretation, which is the process of legal argument. When a legal action has been undertaken by a party, it is based on an interpretation of the law, which has been reached at and supported by legal analysis….

 

At the fundamental level of legal analysis, the importance lies within the facts as they pertain to legal arguments. Facts represent the groundwork that forms the concrete basis by which any legal action can be undertaken. A fact, at its simplest definition, is something real, because it is established as having actually happened, it maintains a concrete existence, or because it can be established as the finding of a concrete existence. While facts, in layman’s terms, represent something black and white, or as simple as true or false, in legal analysis, facts are something that have to be presented, both through interpretations of a law, in combination with evidence.

 

Identifying the accurate legal rules of a given legal proceeding seems like an obvious element to legal analysis and argument, but it must be remembered that the legal system is a vast organism, comprising numerous categories and jurisdictions. It is always in an ongoing state of flux, due to changes in interpretation facilitated by arguments and precedents. Enacting any legal action involves an accurate identification of the rules of law applicable to a situation, because inaccurate provision of an argument on the wrong rule of law will invalidate the argument immediately, regardless of how convincing or supported the argument is. Complicating these terms further is that the legal system is broken into numerous different sections and subsections, namely between criminal and civil law, and within those into numerous subcategories and classifications…

 

The means by which legal rules are applied occurs through many different avenues, nearly all of which are dependent upon the nature of the applicable law. As a typically rule, the two major categories of criminal law and civil law are privy to two different forms of oversight.                   

 

 

The means by which the results of a legal argument are reported depend entirely on the nature of the legal analysis, or the argument that is presented. In predictive legal analysis, the results of a finding are usually published in either a scholarly or legal trade journal, one whose audience is focused entirely toward the legal community as a contribution to the public record. In the case of persuasive legal arguments, the results of the findings of the arguments are written in the form of a legal decision, which is written by the court. The form with which this is rendered is determined entirely by the nature of the legal proceedings. An important difference to note, however, is that in predictive analysis, the results are reported by the individual or group reporting the argument, while in persuasive analysis, the results are nearly always written by an individual or group that has had to be persuaded by that argument…

The term “legal analysis” is one that can be applied broadly across the entire legal spectrum, but it is basis is found in the concrete understanding that the application and use of law is based almost entirely on interpretation. Laws vary across the spectrum of criminal, civil, corporate, or political law, and vary within its many categories in complexity. 

A law could be a simple as a sentence or as long as a book. On the other hand, laws are predicated on finding a consensus on how they are to be interpreted, and sometimes this calls for arguments to be made that support a particular interpretation, which is the process of legal argument. When a legal action has been undertaken by a party, it is based on an interpretation of the law, which has been reached at and supported by legal analysis.

 

The tools used to analyze the law, are as numerous as they are complex. Like any form of discourse, arguments are generally supported by existing arguments as much as they are by reading of written law. These existing arguments are called precedents, and they are usually based on decisions made upon existing court cases which involved interpretation and reinterpretation of the law as a means of establishing a means by which to render a decision.  

In the case of the Supreme Court, their form of judicial review tries to determine whether an interpretation of a law brought before the Court can be interpreted under the United States Constitution. In the case of a law being found in violation of the Constitution or in support of it, the Court renders a decision supporting their finding. That decision then can be used as one form of precedent, though precedents can be established at all levels of the court, not only on the highest court, provided that a higher court has not already invalidated that decision.

 

Legal analysis does not only happen in terms that involve specific legal action (though it is these legal actions alone that can establish precedents), but also enters in legalistic discourse through academic means, which can also be cited to support legal arguments (though they carry significantly less weight than precedents). Generally, this form of legal analysis is called predictive analysis, since it is not based on a legal matter with which it plays a direct part, but are based on presenting hypothetical interpretations. When the matter of legal analysis is based specifically on an existing matter that requires the arguing of a legal point, this is called persuasive analysis.

 

Generally, the practice of law should be scene as the practice of argument, with legal analysis being seen as the means by which an argument is proposed, constructed, and supported either to