A simplistic view of law attempts to justify this outlook that the knowledge of law is enough to work as either a lawyer or judge. Although it is likely to endorse defense and judgment in hearing sessions, it cannot meet all conditional requirements for lawyers and judges to stay on a rational and practical stance needed to win. Strategic lawyering is a practice used by courts and law firms in order to hold the most responsible actors to account, provoke social change and protect the most vulnerable victims or clients. This belief is not more prevalent among Iranian lawyers than legal academics. Legal literature is a newfound attitude and recently, bar associations and law schools are preparing some courses to improve lawyers playing with a strategic game.
Any accused has a fair right to hide facts or factual items, whereas law and a fair trial always forbids them from any dishonest conducts. “Onus probandi” allows accused persons legally to lie or use selected information as a defending mechanism. In addition, any torture or misbehavior persuading or motivating arrested persons or everyone standing on a session trial are strictly illegal. Of course, consequences chosen by persons deeply affect those who choose different kinds of dishonest behaving in a way that is intended to deceive people, for example by lying, or cheating. Therefore, a barrister, for example, has skills and a serious responsibility in order to use verbal methods to mine metaphorically all items hidden or changed by criminals or other associates. Lawyers and judges, hence, are allowed to structure different kinds of discussions, plan various questions or even use selected information resisting them to think precisely about whatever are some practical examples to present unknown stages of a case and its relevant information. It is performed continuously till proving a self-contradiction point observed obviously by the judges or juries. Obviously, this is a perfect game planned and occurred as a result of the performance of an extract strategy prepared already by a collaborated teamwork.
The accused’s rotten trick has been copied and applied by witnesses or even victims. Occasionally, plaintiffs like defendants select some pieces of a puzzle to convince the judges or juries in order to observe their stories as they want to present. These are various kinds of responsibility for lawyers, prosecutors or judges to extract and deduct the fact from all information hidden by persons who do not want to confess or cannot present what happened. It, therefore, justifies the notion of the strategic lawyering as a principal pillar to reach the sheer truth. It is obvious that the main target of lawyering as well as law is comparing between subject and rule. The subject is fact or contains factual items and the rule is referring to laws and regulations. A fundamental duty of lawyers is to acknowledge, admit or accept facts assisting judges to adjudicate fairly and realistically by fact, not stories. It, as a result, needs a different approach in lawyering. Therefore, lawyers necessarily should plan a strategic game to reach their targets.
People recruit lawyers to preserve their rights. Also, they are normally expecting to be served when they are accused of a crime. In both civil and criminal cases, they cannot defend or be unable to make present-truth and predict the future as substantial as an expected occurrence. It leads readers into a factual comprehension that lawyers professionally and necessarily should be skilled for a strategic lawyering resulted in a perfect engagement with current events or even future prediction via the recognition of automatically extracted practical patterns. Any predicting view should be taken into account as an unavoidable way. Indeed, precise fact as well as real prediction of judicial result are working as an interwoven tool. A lawyer cannot expect a suitable result without a building bridge between the past and future. Because such a collaborative bridge is driving a fundamental shift in how they think, plan, fund and work across sectors to make bigger change for a fast-moving approach. Although the comprehension of the fact and what happened in the past are necessary to drive a case better and more professional, precise forecasting strategies are not likely to be achieved, if lawyers have not been taught. In other words, forecasting is their secret weapon in lawyering. To understand the concept of lawyering-value forecasting, it is necessary to distinguish its two key components: forecasting data and case pipeline. Obviously, there is a very little difference in resource between the best and the worst case pipelines. Law firms look at law and lawyering as a business line that guarantees their future. It pressures them to organize various obligatory practical courses for their solicitors, barristers, paralegals and other associates. Driving cases, structuring negotiations and defining innovative playground with new game rules and instructions all have been considered to for lawyers work lawyering profoundly.
To sum, lawyering is different with the knowledge of law. In addition, lawyers should be prepared by practical skills assisting them with tools that they can derive their case better and successfully. To achieve highly profound results, they must deduct fact as well as occurred. They are professionally responsible to extract hidden information and revise presented events. Past and future should be clarified. Lawyering contains skills preparing lawyers to defend as they are expected from.