A related question is “Have lawyers used Rationale to prepare a
case?”  If yes, then how is it used?  If no, then why not?  If
Rationale is useful for lawyers, you might think they’d use it.  On
the other hand, the same can be said of intelligence analysts.  A
question for this group: What obstacles have you found to using
Rationale outside the classroom?

I’ve asked three attorney friends – educated at top law schools in th
U.S., two are litigators – how they organize and make sense of their
cases/arguments.  Specifically, I asked whether they create any type
of argument hierarchy, i.e., hierarchy of supporting/refuting claims
and evidence.  They basically answered ‘no’.  They informally identify
major issues in the case in their heads or on paper.  They sometimes
organize evidence by type, or group evidence by some legal issue in
the case; often on paper, rarely using a computer.

[Note: someone please cross-post to argu...@yahoogroups.com]

On Apr 28, 7:45 am, Tim van Gelder Austhink <t...@austhink.com> wrote: