.png)
Philosophy has been my favorite subject since I was 11, but recent aspirations to become a lawyer have made me wonder: how do they connect?
Even though history is rich in philosophy, as seen through the works of Confucius, Plato and more, it has now become a somewhat unconventional subject to study. When most people learn that I study philosophy, they ask ‘why philosophy?’. This interview-like question always makes me internally scramble for the perfect answer.
So, here it is, an article that shall prepare me for all the ‘why philosophy’ questions that I will be asked if I do have the privilege to become a qualified lawyer.
Author: Vienna Kwan, Intern
The academic overlap: where legal minds meet the love of wisdom
In 1952, two teenagers, Derek Bentley and Christopher Craig, intended to steal from a warehouse in London. Chris had a gun; Derek did not. When one police officer arrived at the scene, he grabbed hold of Derek and said to Chris, “Hand over the gun, lad”. Derek then shouted, “Let him have it, Chris!”. Chris subsequently shot the police officer. Chris was charged with murder, whilst Derek was convicted as an accomplice to murder in R v Craig and Bentley.
“Let him have it, Chris” had two interpretations. Interpretation one was that Derek was telling Chris to give the police his gun. Interpretation two was that Derek was telling Chris to open fire. This was an example my lecturer used on the philosophical topic of ‘Intention and Convention’, to question whether the meaning of Derek’s utterance was determined by his intention (what he meant) or its conventional meaning (how it adheres to linguistic norms).
This hyper-focus on words shows the importance that both analytic philosophy and law place on language and how they both strive for clear and precise wording.
In essays, we usually start with defining keywords. Consider the following sample question from an Oxbridge law interview, which is notorious for its bizarre and thought-provoking questions.
“If my friend locks me in a room, and says I am free to come out whenever I like as long as I pay £5, is this a deprivation of liberty?”
From a philosopher’s perspective, instead of answering ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ right away, we first define the keywords that dictate the direction of the question. After studying ‘Free Will’ for my first-year paper in metaphysics, the keyword that stands out to me is ‘free’. What does it mean to be free? The ability to do otherwise? The ability to rise above biological, environmental and social constraints? To be physically free? It seems the key is to investigate: freedom at what level? This question could be a whole essay on its own, so I’ll end it here.
To find philosophy in law, the most direct answer is found in jurisprudence. The philosophy of law, also known as jurisprudence, is the theoretical realm of law that explores what law is and what it ought to be. It is similar to political philosophy. In fact, there is so much overlap that the Cambridge philosophy faculty doesn’t allow you to take both the political philosophy paper and the jurisprudence paper together in second-year Philosophy!
But beyond that, there are rising topics concerning ethics and law like AI ethics and law, medical ethics and law and more. The intersection between philosophy and law consists of a list of almost endless topics.
Thinking like a philosopher: the unexpected edge in legal strategy
In my internship at Ravenscroft & Schmierer, I have been able to experience what it means to have ‘transferable skills’, a term we hear at almost every career webinar and workshop. But, it’s true, transferable skills are important. Thus, I would say the philosophy degree helps me the most in two ways.
Firstly, being able to digest long, dense and confusing material. Both law and philosophy involve this.
A postgraduate philosophy student once told me that he spent the whole term reading the first few lines of Wittgenstein’s Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus and still felt like he didn’t understand it. This is the gist of philosophy: you can never fully grasp the concepts you read about because there is no such thing as a right answer. Otherwise, the discussions would no longer consist of everlasting debates and would most likely cease to exist.
Law also involves reading confusing material. I encountered this when I was tasked with cross-referencing ordinances and legislation with contracts. As I read each clause, I found myself re-reading it before I could even reach the end of the clause. However, the appealing aspect that leads to the practice of law to be different from philosophy, is that you do eventually or rather, you have to, understand it and present the right answer.
Secondly, being able to reason logically.
Most people are surprised when they hear that there’s mathematics and logic involved in one of my first-year papers called ‘Formal Methods’. They are even more surprised when I show them a snippet of my logic worksheets, which appears as a form of alien language found in scientific fiction at first glance.
The test of logic is common in law-related assessments like the LSAT or the Watson-Glaser test. My logic classes are able to act as a semi-preparation session for such assessments.
More real world applications of reasoning logically can be found in the analysis of complex cases, the navigation of legal frameworks and the construction of arguments. For example, a key part of a barrister’s duty is to show that one can’t jump to conclusions. This was demonstrated by the barrister our firm worked with at the trial I attended.
For that case, the defendant was found wearing the uniform of a restaurant— a black t-shirt with the restaurant logo. Can we immediately conclude that the person is an employee of said restaurant? As the barrister pointed out, no. More substantial evidence like payroll, registration, security camera footage is required.
The conclusion should be necessitated by the evidence. Philosophy helps me understand what it takes to construct a strong and substantiated argument by helping me understand what it means for an argument to be valid and sound, a concept we extensively study in our first year.
At a law firm, is my philosophy degree useless?
I would obviously say no, for the reasons I listed above. However, in any workplace, theory can only take you so far.
No academic degree can prevent you from being a lawyer. In fact, the subject you study may provide you with your own secret weapon and the foundation needed to become a lawyer. For example, if you study physics, you could become a patent lawyer for scientific inventions and so on.
It’s your soft skills that will set you apart. At the firm, I observed that how you problem-solve with your co-workers, how you communicate with your client and how you negotiate with a third party is all the more important. As many lawyers will tell you, this comes with practice!
For this reason, I recommend any student to apply for an internship at Ravenscroft & Schmierer. If you are a non-law student interested in law, feel free to contact the current Campus Ambassadors about the opportunities available at the firm.
Are you a law students with questions on the different paths to becoming a qualified lawyer in Hong Kong? I recorded a podcast about this with three of my colleagues at the firm, have a listen here:
Vienna Kwan is a second-year undergraduate studying Philosophy at the University of Cambridge. She completed her internship at Ravenscroft & Schmierer from July to September 2024.
Vienna Kwan
Summer Intern
Comments