My final weeks were spent researching
and developing answers and affirmative defenses for the case from the beginning
of my internship. During this time, I was also able to reflect on my time at
Casais & Prias PLLC and the similarities between the history and legal
fields. In addition to the similarities between the two disciplines some of the
things I experienced also recalled historical court cases from my studies.
The motion we had previously filed
to strike the plaintiff’s counts was not approved so we had to proceed to
answers and affirmative defenses. This entailed returning to the original
counts and now disassembling the counts point by point. This part of my
internship reminded me greatly of analyzing sources and the writing of
historians. In the history discipline breaking down arguments and examining
their strengths and weaknesses are essential not just for reading but writing
your own arguments.
This ability to closely examine
arguments was just another aspect of the legal field shared with history.
Through my internship I had the chance to utilize skills from my studies in
history directly in research, assessing evidence, in addition to analyzing
arguments. At the start of my internship I expected some cross over between the
skillsets of both fields, but I did not expect the similarities to be this
thorough. At its bare bones, the historical discipline teaches us to analyze
information and then develop arguments. In that development, we have to recognize
and expect opposing viewpoints. These skills prepare students of history for
various different fields, one of which is the legal field.
In reflection of my time at the
internship I’ve gained an appreciation for some other historical writings. I’ve
previously noted the connection between Natalie Zemon Davis’ writing on Jean De
Coras, but my internship made me reflect on Lying about Hitler by Richard
Evans. What was originally a frustrating read about the David Irving trial I
have a better appreciation for. David Irving was a holocaust denier who sued
Deborah Lipstadt on libel for declaring he was not a historian and a holocaust
denier. Richard Evans was one of the historians hired to analyze David Irving’s
writings. They poured through his footnotes and sources to prove he was in fact
not a historian by his manipulation of sources and research for his holocaust
denying. This event showed how closely tied these two disciplines can be. After
seeing all that goes into legal arguments I also have a newfound appreciation
not just for Evans’ analysis, but also for Lipstadt’s lawyer, Anthony Julius,
and the construction of his argument.
No comments:
Post a Comment