In the German civil law system, lawyers focus a lot on written laws. They help clients understand these laws and how they apply to their situations. Their work often involves a lot of paperwork, and they must be very precise. They argue cases in court too, but it’s really important how they prepare their documents.
In common law countries, like the U.S. or the U.K., lawyers do things a bit differently. They look at decisions from past cases because those can affect current cases. They’re also active in court, questioning witnesses and making arguments. They often try to settle things outside of court as well.
So, while lawyers in both systems are there to help their clients, the way they do it can be quite different because of how the two legal systems work.
Practicing in Scandinavian countries involves different approaches, primarily due to the variations in legal systems and cultural influences.
Scandinavian countries (like Sweden, Denmark, and Norway) have legal systems that are often considered to be a mix of civil law and common law traditions, though they lean more towards civil law. The role of a lawyer, or “advokat,” in these countries is somewhat different. The legal culture in Scandinavian countries tends to be less formal. There’s a strong emphasis on negotiation and mediation, with lawyers often engaging in collaborative discussions to resolve disputes outside of courtrooms. Lawyers might have broader practice, dealing with a range of legal matters since there’s a tradition of generalism in some of these countries. While they also rely on written submissions, there might be more room for oral advocacy in a less rigid style compared to German practice. The court proceedings could be more interactive. Scandinavian legal practices also reflect the high level of social trust in these societies. There’s a significant focus on welfare and social justice, which can influence legal outcomes.
More about this and more topics at my Book “Legal Ties, Family Bonds”
East Europe countries tend to have a mix of civil and case law system. Lawyers who mostly build their cases based on the written laws but often use past cases on the preparation of their cases. The big difference is in how exactly the case is developed in the courtroom and what exactly the role of the lawyers is.
Civil cases in those courtrooms are developing in the form of a trial, with open statements, witness/litigants direct and cross examination, conclusions or closing arguments, and a final decision.
Arguments and proofs are carefully prepared by the lawyers, who are obligated to have clear proof for any argument or answer. Arguments or statements not based on reasonable proof may easily be considered speculative and will be eliminated immediately. Mostly, that kind of intervention, objection for speculation, happens through the opposite lawyer, but in very extreme situations, the judge may also intervene. Building a case as a lawyer in such a system must be very carefully structured and based on laws and real proofs. Of course, all the preparation of paperwork, the preparation of witnesses, before the deadline submissions and the responsibility for making a favorable decision rest exclusively with the lawyer.
As I already mentioned, I don’t find any law system perfect. There are plenty of cons as well as plenty pros in any system. Having such a flexible system as happen in Eastern Europe doesn’t mean that it’s a fair system at all, there are a lot of manipulations tricks according to the scope of the lawyer, but what system doesn’t have those kinds of lawyers, who try to use the law beyond the norm of justice. That’s why there is the bar association, which carefully investigates cases of abusive or manipulative members, and ensures the disbarment of any rules breaker.
The association Bar functions are extremely necessary, and its existence is fully understandable for places like East Europe or for common law countries, as the law is very flexible the situation may escape control and harm the trust of the people on the legal function of their own system. So, the Bar association is informed if lawyers get criminal record which will cause the loss of lawyer license or more often, lawyers become a warning for unethical behavior. Unethical behavior that may cause disbarment are also fabrications of evidence.
The Bar association is less strict in places like Germany where, is believed, the law business is covered by trustful professionals who have too little space to move, making it for them less likely to take an unethical or out of norms path.