We have talked about this a lot in class. While we have rules and precedents we follow in the courts, we cannot understand them unless we look into the cases they come from. By reading cases that are under the same issue we can start to get a clear picture about how these rules are applied but without them we are just looking at purely theoretical ideas. To be an effective lawyer we need to be able to make the connection between the cases and not just memorizing the rule.

They were saying earlier in the text that legal research is a science. This section here truly explains why that is true. In science there are so many things that touch that specific topic, and, as a researcher, you must know where to start and how to look through these related items. The pooling of knowledge is imperative if we want growth and understanding as there are just too many things to look at. Pooling knowledge allows the field to come to an agreement of what rule they want to follow and any other approaches that people have tried that work or don't work. In the law we need to have a consensus on how we are interpreting and applying the law or we will not have the results that we are looking for when implementing them.

In law we are already dealing with complicated issues that regularly have no perfect answer. Isn't it better to clearly explain what you are presenting so that it is easier for the reader to follow your reasoning? Why make it more complicated by not writing well when that could hurt your argument? Clear communication is needed in legal writing so that the read can understand your stance and reasoning for reaching these conclusion. By not communicating that well and receiving a 'benchslap' just doesn't seem worth it.