Top Law Schools

As the subject of this post suggests, I'd like to get feedback from people on which book they thought was the best primer for legal reasoning (e.g., Bramble Bush, Thinking Like A Lawyer, or John Delaney's Intro to Legal Reasoning, etc.)

See this thread:

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... =7&t=98835

Funny enough, I'd say the best book for an intro to legal reasoning is called "Introduction to Legal Reasoning." By Delaney I think.

Delaney has two books worth reading. The first is introduction to legal reasoning, which teaches you how to read cases and has specific exercises. The second is how to do your best on law school exams, which is about how to produce legal arguments. I've found everything in the law exam book carries over to legal memoranda. Delaney's books are top notch. I recommend both of them.

So is Delaney's book the best?

britishtoxicity wrote:So is Delaney's book the best?

I though Schauer's Thinking Like A Lawyer was pretty good . . .

Delaney's two books cover legal reasoning, but their scope is very narrow. Other books in this thread are also good bets for legal reasoning.

Not exactly on the legal reasoning track, but 5 Types of Legal Arguments by Huhn is a great book. The book gives clear distinctions between plain text, policy, intent, precedent and tradition argumentation. Also, The Legal Analyst was a good book.

I loved Legal Analyst. A nice, basic primer on law and economics.

I bought Schauer's book but never read it all the way through. I thought it was boring.

vamedic03 wrote:

britishtoxicity wrote:So is Delaney's book the best?

I though Schauer's Thinking Like A Lawyer was pretty good . . .

Have you read both? Because I'm looking for some comparative insight. I was planning on reading only one book during my last semester of UG for law school and I've kinda narrowed it down to these two.

jerjon2 wrote:

vamedic03 wrote:

britishtoxicity wrote:So is Delaney's book the best?

I though Schauer's Thinking Like A Lawyer was pretty good . . .

Have you read both? Because I'm looking for some comparative insight. I was planning on reading only one book during my last semester of UG for law school and I've kinda narrowed it down to these two.

Delaney's is a workbook, not just a 'reading' book if that changes things for you.

samiseaborn wrote:

jerjon2 wrote:

vamedic03 wrote:

britishtoxicity wrote:So is Delaney's book the best?

I though Schauer's Thinking Like A Lawyer was pretty good . . .

Have you read both? Because I'm looking for some comparative insight. I was planning on reading only one book during my last semester of UG for law school and I've kinda narrowed it down to these two.

Delaney's is a workbook, not just a 'reading' book if that changes things for you.

It does, thanks, I think I will get Thinking Like a Lawyer then. I have enough work to do right now...

Would anyone recommend Logic for Lawyers : A Guide to Clear Legal Thinking by Ruggero J. Aldisert? How is this compared to the Delaney books?

brigun wrote:Would anyone recommend Logic for Lawyers : A Guide to Clear Legal Thinking by Ruggero J. Aldisert? How is this compared to the Delaney books?

*bump*

brigun wrote:Would anyone recommend Logic for Lawyers : A Guide to Clear Legal Thinking by Ruggero J. Aldisert? How is this compared to the Delaney books?

Haven't read the Delaney book, but I just got this in the mail today and I'm about halfway through. Pretty incredible book so far: well-written, detailed, lots of references to real cases (as opposed to endless "no vehicles in the park" hypos)... A good connection between some of the books I read for LSAT Prep (Logic Made Easy, A Rulebook for Arguments, Informal Logic) and the actual law

brigun wrote:Would anyone recommend Logic for Lawyers : A Guide to Clear Legal Thinking by Ruggero J. Aldisert? How is this compared to the Delaney books?

I used this book for a class, and thought it was terrible. Do not buy it. It focuses on informal logic, mainly stuff you would learn in a lower-level Philosophy class, by using random bits from cases. Most of the time, the author/judge usually just quotes himself and provides commentary on his opinions. The commentary is usually very disconnected from the case because the opinions are divorced from their context. The professor for my class actually decided to never use the book again.

vamedic03 wrote:

britishtoxicity wrote:So is Delaney's book the best?

I though Schauer's Thinking Like A Lawyer was pretty good . . .

I want to +1 Schauer's book. It's pretty solid and straightforward. He cites to himself a whole lot, which I found entertaining, but it doesn't really detract from the usefulness of the book at all.

Übermensch wrote:

brigun wrote:Would anyone recommend Logic for Lawyers : A Guide to Clear Legal Thinking by Ruggero J. Aldisert? How is this compared to the Delaney books?

I used this book for a class, and thought it was terrible. Do not buy it. It focuses on informal logic, mainly stuff you would learn in a lower-level Philosophy class, by using random bits from cases. Most of the time, the author/judge usually just quotes himself and provides commentary on his opinions. The commentary is usually very disconnected from the case because the opinions are divorced from their context. The professor for my class actually decided to never use the book again.

I agree that larger excerpts from the cases would be helpful in providing some context, but the excerpts are mainly there to provide illustrations of different logical concepts (which are indeed the stuff you would learn in a lower-level Philosophy class), so too much might distract from that purpose. Overall, I think it's better than the other Legal Reasoning book I read, Thinking like a Lawyer by Kenneth Vandevelde.

vanwinkle wrote:

vamedic03 wrote:

britishtoxicity wrote:So is Delaney's book the best?

I though Schauer's Thinking Like A Lawyer was pretty good . . .

I want to +1 Schauer's book. It's pretty solid and straightforward. He cites to himself a whole lot, which I found entertaining, but it doesn't really detract from the usefulness of the book at all.

This is in the mail, on the way. Thanks for the recommendation!

vanwinkle wrote:

vamedic03 wrote:

britishtoxicity wrote:So is Delaney's book the best?

I though Schauer's Thinking Like A Lawyer was pretty good . . .

I want to +1 Schauer's book. It's pretty solid and straightforward. He cites to himself a whole lot, which I found entertaining, but it doesn't really detract from the usefulness of the book at all.

FWIW, it's kind of hard to write anything on jurisprudence and not cite to Schauer. And it's impossible to discuss rules versus standards without citing Schauer. (which is even more reason to read Schauer)

"The Legal Analyst: A Toolkit for Thinking about the Law" by Farnsworth is excellent for an introduction (Eric Posner, Eugene Volokh, and Saul Levmore co-wrote some of the chapters).

I'm thinking of studying law, thus so far, I'm only a complete neophyte and tyro. Which books would you recommend for me to self-read, from the above, or mayhap others which haven't been presented yet?

A time to kill by John Grisham. It teaches about cool down period for murder.

mary had a little lamb

our dean wrote "The Legal Analyst" and I recommend it. It's really good for setting up your brain for torts in a big way, and contracts as well.