What Does a Lawyer Actually Do?

A client rarely comes to a lawyer with a legal question. A client comes with a problem.

He doesn’t say, “Please advise me on the applicability of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act.” He says: “Sir, this is my property. They are trying to take it.” Or: “They owe me money and they are refusing to pay.” Or: “My husband has left me and is not maintaining me.” Or: “I have been falsely implicated.” Or, sometimes, simply: “I don’t know what to do. Please help me.”

That is where the work begins — and the client’s first version of events is a story, not yet a case. You listen. Then you ask questions. Then more questions. What happened? When did it happen? Who was involved? What happened before that? What documents exist? What did the other side do? What did you do? What exactly do you want? Because before a lawyer can find a remedy, the lawyer has to understand the problem that actually requires one.

Only after that comes the second stage: now let us see what the law has to say about your problem. You research. Which law applies? Does it recognise a right? Has that right been violated? Does it impose a liability on the other side? Above all — does it provide a remedy? Because not every wrong we experience in life automatically becomes a legal wrong, and not every legal wrong gives us every remedy we might wish for.

Suppose the answer is yes — the law provides a remedy. The job still isn’t finished. Not even close. Now you have to ask where you actually go. Which court, which forum, does that court have jurisdiction — territorial, pecuniary, subject-matter — is there a specialised forum, is there a statutory mechanism that has to be followed first. Only once those questions are answered can a lawyer honestly say: this is where we have to go.

And then comes the transformation that is, in a sense, the whole of the job. The client comes to the lawyer with a problem expressed in the language of life. The lawyer has to take that problem and translate it into the language of law. His ten-page story, told the way people actually tell stories — out of order, full of feeling, weighted toward whichever detail hurt him most — cannot simply be handed to a court. The lawyer has to find the material facts inside it, arrange them, remove what doesn’t matter, connect what remains to the governing law, explain why the client is entitled to come to court at all, and finally say to that court: these are the facts, this is why I am entitled to relief, and this is the relief I am asking you for.

That sentence is the formal beginning of civil litigation. A suit is instituted by the presentation of a plaint. And so the journey we have been tracing runs: problem, then consultation, then facts, then legal research, then remedy, then jurisdiction, then drafting, then court.

At this point it would be reasonable to think the hard part is over. We found the law. We found the remedy. We found the court. We prepared the case. Surely now the court will simply deliver justice.

That is exactly where the story turns.

Because litigation has begun, and the real difficulty is only starting. Finding a remedy and obtaining a remedy are two very different things. The client came to the lawyer wanting a solution. The lawyer found the law, found the remedy, found the court, prepared the case, filed it — and then the case enters the judicial system, and the vocabulary around it changes entirely. Date. Notice. Service. Written statement. Evidence. Adjournment. Arguments. Another date. And sometimes, another date after that.

The law may promise a remedy, but litigation has to travel through a process before that remedy actually reaches the client — and that journey can bring two considerable problems with it: delay, and uncertainty. The client came asking when he will get his property back. You may know the legal answer. The harder question is when the court will actually decide, and that question is never answered merely by reading the substantive law.

Which gives us, for now, the shape of this lecture. The first half of a lawyer’s job is finding the road to justice. The second half is travelling that road with the client — and sometimes that road is long, uncertain, and full of obstacles neither of you can see from where you’re standing today.

None of this happens in the abstract, though. It happens through one particular document, at one particular moment, when a lawyer sits down to actually build the case.

“Sir, they are taking my property,” the client says, the way clients always say it — as though the sentence alone should be enough.

“When,” the senior asks. “Who. By what act. And what, exactly, do you want the court to do?”

The junior, listening, makes a small connection out loud. “So the first job isn’t drafting.”

“Correct,” the senior says. “The first job is discovering the case.”

That discovery has a name once it reaches paper. Order VII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure sets out what a plaint must actually contain — the parties, the facts constituting the cause of action and when it arose, the facts showing that the court has jurisdiction, the relief the plaintiff is claiming, and where the plaintiff has allowed a set-off or relinquished part of a claim, a statement to that effect. It reads like a checklist. It is really a discipline: it is the law insisting that a lawyer cannot walk into court with a feeling, however justified — only with facts, arranged in a form the court can act on.

Which is why a genuine grievance can still fail, not because the client was wrong, but because nobody did the harder work of turning his story into the specific facts and the specific relief a court is equipped to grant. Try it yourself on a story you already know well — your own, a friend’s, something from the news. Play the mock client: what happened, when, who did what, what did you do, and what, precisely, do you want a court to do about it. Build a one-page timeline from the answers. You will notice, almost immediately, how much of what you first wanted to say turns out not to matter, and how much of what does matter you hadn’t thought to mention at all.

That is the lawyer’s first transformation — story into structure. But knowing the destination is not the same as knowing you’ll arrive there on time. Because the moment you finish mapping the road, another question starts pressing at the edge of it: if the law promises all this, why does the road itself so often take years to walk?

Continue the series

PreviousS1 L2 — Law Has Two Jobs

NextS1 L4 — Where the Law Fails

All thirty lecturesThe First Brief — full contents

Chanda AssociatesHome · Law Updates · About Us · Advocates · Contact