Can I still be a lawyer if I don t have good argumentation skills? How to overcome this shortcoming?

Hello From this point, you can feel that your self is more strict, and you want to be more perfect. People are dissatisfied with their current situation and have expectations, so they will continue to whip themselves to keep improving. However, this kind of requirement is to proceed from reality, from one's own situation, if you set too high standards for yourself, not only is it difficult to achieve, but it will hit yourself very hard, and you may have a lot of negative evaluations of yourself, and most of the time this negative evaluation is extreme and exaggerated.

If you want to change your current predicament, you need to start by accepting the fact that your ability is not yet up to your expectations; Accept the fact that you have high expectations of yourself. Then allow yourself to temporarily fail to meet your expectations, and allow yourself to slowly achieve it through a certain amount of time of hard work. Don't ask yourself to do it in one step, you need to give yourself a long transition, tap your strengths, and give full play to them in continuous attempts.

If you don't have good argumentation skills, don't be a lawyer. Pick the job that suits you!

A lawyer's ability to debate is only a small part of it, and the basis of a lawyer's debate lies in evidence, and no matter how strong the ability to debate without evidence is, it is pale.

What is the only reason for poor debating skills? Stage fright? Poor logical thinking? Unclear? A lawyer not only looks at the ability to debate, but also has the spirit of the law and a good grasp of the legal foundation, and other abilities can be trained, the question is, can you pass the judicial exam?

Let's think about the rest after passing the bar exam.

The bar exam is the hard indicator.

Hello, I'm Gibran.

How well do you learn about the law?

A lawyer who is good at arguing is not a lawyer with strong professional ability, because some lawyers will not grasp the angle of the legal provisions to debate, they just argue from their own point of view, then the judge will not admit that their argument is valid. In addition to being able to debate, you must also have professional skills, very familiar with the legal provisions, know what angle to rely on to get the greatest benefit for their own party.

That's what makes a good lawyer. Although some lawyers are very good at speaking, their winning rate is not high. So it doesn't mean that a good lawyer should be able to debate without words.

A good lawyer should be very logical and able to get to the point. In this way, a lawsuit can be won.

If you want to find a good lawyer, you should go to some law firms with high rankings, and the lawyers recruited by these law firms are very high-quality. So you can go to these places and find these lawyers. Moreover, the information of these lawyers can be queried on the Internet, and you can go to the local ** to check what kind of relationship this lawyer has had and what kind of performance he has in this lawsuit, so as to decide whether to invite him.

Lawyer's fees are still relatively expensive, unless it is a relatively important case, otherwise ordinary people will not go to a lawyer. A lot of people go to find a pro bono lawyer, because pro bono lawyers basically don't charge a fee, and they are very professional.

Just like the case of Xu's mother asking Xiong Lei for a house, it was handled by the public interest lawyer of the Mekong case. This pro bono lawyer is not only very caring, but also very capable, and was able to win the Mekong case in an international tribunal. Therefore, such a lawyer not only has professional ability, but also has practical experience.

Hiring such a lawyer will have a higher appeal rate. However, such a history is also very difficult to find, and there will definitely be a lot of people looking for them, and they will choose the people they want to help in these cases. So it just depends on luck.

Not necessarily. This is because some lawyers are good at debating, but they are not particularly good when they fight lawsuits, and the winning rate of lawsuits is not particularly high, so it should also be decided according to the actual situation.

Yes, this is the most important point, that is, he must be good at debating, and he must also have real talent and learning, so that he can be regarded as a first-class lawyer.

It is considered a relatively capable lawyer, because this kind of lawyer is familiar with the knowledge of the law. So good at debating.

If there are no objections to important issues such as the facts and evidence of the case, it is okay for the lawyer to defend himself if he is not clear. However, the defendant generally does not have a good understanding of the legal provisions, and his or her own defense may not be on the point, which will affect the argument and even the effectiveness of the judgment. Therefore, it is better to hire a lawyer.

Problems that need to be paid attention to in self-defense: first, before **, you can consult other people in the same house on how to defend, which is also called brainstorming; Second, think about the content of the defense before the defense (whether it is for the determination of facts, mitigating circumstances, or for the application of law or a comprehensive defense); The third is to pay attention to the defense should be clear and concise, the important content should be said appropriately and slowly, and the clerk should be given the time to record, if the clerk does not record, the clerk can be informed that the defense point of view should be recorded; Fourth, after adjournment, it is necessary to pay attention to checking the trial transcript, and if there is any content that should be recorded or not, request the clerk to make up the record.

Are you talking about civil or criminal, defendant or plaintiff? When you say your own reasons, you must have evidence to refute the other party's defense around your own claims. Talking about the main points, less about uselessness, judges like to listen to opinions.

Grasp the main point, and it is useless to say anything else