Why Do We Need Law at All?

Before you learn a single rule, answer this.

Why do we need law at all?

Don’t answer too quickly. Sit with it for a moment, because the answer you give in your first year of law school is rarely the one you’ll still hold by the time you’re arguing your first case.

Here is a way to test your answer. Imagine you wake up tomorrow morning and discover that every law in the country vanished overnight. Not weakened. Not suspended. Gone. No Constitution. No statutes. No courts. No police. No judges. Just people — and whatever they choose to do to one another.

You step outside. Everything looks ordinary. The sun has risen. People are walking to work. Shops are opening their shutters. Nothing about the world has changed.

But something underneath the world has changed completely.

By the afternoon, a man walks into your house. He looks around, unhurried, like a man inspecting something he already owns.

“From today,” he says, “this house is mine.”

You stare at him. “Excuse me?”

“I said this house is mine. Leave.”

“This is my house,” you tell him. “I bought it. I have the documents.”

He smiles, almost kindly, the way you’d smile at a child explaining something obvious back to you. “So?”

You show him the papers anyway, because it’s the only thing you know how to do. He glances at them.

“Who cares?”

You feel your voice rising. “This is my property.”

He steps closer. “Then what are you going to do about it?”

That is the question that should stop you cold. Not because you don’t have an answer — because you suddenly realise your document hasn’t disappeared. Your right hasn’t disappeared. What has disappeared is the machinery that made that right worth anything.

There’s no one to call. No police officer is coming. There’s no court where you can file a case, no judge who will look at both of you and decide who is telling the truth. The dispute is no longer “who has the legal right to this house.” It has quietly become something else: “who has the power to take it.”

Maybe you’re stronger than him. Maybe he’s stronger than you. Maybe you have ten people behind you and he has twenty. Whoever wins from here wins for one reason only — not because he was right, but because he was stronger.

That is the first thing a lawyer has to understand about law, and it’s easy to miss precisely because it sounds obvious once said aloud: law does not exist to tell you who is right. It exists so that being right still matters, even against someone stronger than you.

Now — a fair objection. If no human being had ever written a law, would there really be no law at all?

Look outside again. The seasons still turn. The sun still rises and sets on schedule. Matter still behaves the way matter behaves. There is an order in the universe that owes nothing to any parliament. Call it the law of nature, if you like — it was here before we were, and it will outlast every statute we ever pass.

But nature’s order was never built to protect you. Nature does not say the stronger animal must respect the weaker one. Nature does not say a house belongs to the person who paid for it. Nature simply operates. It doesn’t choose.

Somewhere in our history, human beings did choose. We looked at the law of nature — the strong prevail, the weak submit — and we said: not for us. Not entirely.

Picture two people who each want the same piece of land. One says, “It’s mine.” The other says, “No, it’s mine.” They can’t both have it. Left to nature, this ends the way these things always end: with force, or the threat of it — whoever can bring more people, more money, more menace to the boundary line.

Or a society can say something else: stop. Bring the dispute here. We will look at the facts. We will look at the law. We will hear you both. And someone we’ve entrusted with the authority to decide will decide.

That sentence is the whole of civilisation’s bet on law, compressed into one instruction. We take a conflict that could be settled by force, and we place it inside a system of reason instead. Instead of “I am stronger, therefore I am right,” we try to build a world where a person can say, “I am right, because the law recognises my claim.” That is not a small difference. It is the difference the entire profession you’re about to join exists to protect.

We replaced the law of force with the force of law.

Now comes the word we use for what the system produces.

Justice.

Everyone talks about justice as though the meaning is obvious. Walk into a courtroom and you’ll find out how quickly that confidence disappears.

Two people stand before a judge. One says, “I am right.” The other says, “No — I am right.” The judge listens. Documents are produced. Witnesses are examined. Arguments are made on both sides. Eventually, judgment is delivered. One party wins. The other loses.

The winner walks out and says: justice has been done.

The loser walks out and says: justice has not been done.

And the judge, if pressed, might say something closer to: I applied the law to the facts and reached a reasoned conclusion.

Three people. One judgment. Three different accounts of what “justice” just happened. That gap — between the legal outcome and what each person experiences as justice — is not a flaw in the system. It’s the fact you’ll spend a career learning to work inside of.

Here’s a question that will follow you through every year of practice: why do two judges, reading the same provision, sometimes reach different conclusions? Is one of them simply wrong?

Not necessarily. Law is written in language, and language has to be interpreted. Facts have to be established before they can be applied to a rule. A statute may fairly bear more than one reasonable reading. Two judges, both reasoning in good faith, can walk different paths through the same words and arrive somewhere different.

I want to offer you an analogy here — not a scientific claim, and certainly not a suggestion that courts run on quantum mechanics, but a useful way of picturing what’s happening. In quantum theory, before a system is observed, it can be described as existing across multiple possible states at once. Something similar, in a purely philosophical sense, happens to a legal dispute before it’s decided. The facts are contested. The law admits more than one interpretation. The arguments on both sides are still live. Until the moment of judgment, the outcome is, in a sense, still moving.

Then the judge decides. Reasons are given. Judgment is pronounced. The possibilities collapse into one legal outcome — the case is over, as far as that court is concerned.

But something keeps spinning after the gavel falls: human perception. The winner sees justice done. The loser sees an injustice. A lawyer reading the judgment years later may still disagree with the reasoning. A higher court may one day reverse it. The court can stop the spinning of the legal outcome. It cannot stop the spinning of human perception.

That’s not a weakness in law. It’s what makes law a living conversation rather than a finished equation — and it’s exactly why the reasoning in a judgment matters as much as the result.

You might reasonably be thinking: interesting, but what does any of this have to do with the job I’m about to do?

Everything. Because every dispute that ever reaches a courtroom — a property dispute, a debt, a broken contract, a family torn over an inheritance — is really asking the same underlying question: how should society resolve this conflict? And every time a court answers that question according to law rather than according to whoever shouted loudest or held the most power, society is quietly repeating the same choice it made long before you were born.

We choose reason over force.

Without law, the chain looks like this: Conflict, then Force, then Winner and Loser.

With law, we build something else: Conflict, then Rules, then Procedure, then Adjudication, then Decision.

That second chain is the entire reason the profession you’re entering exists. Every time you walk into a courtroom, you are not simply representing a client — you are re-enacting that civilisational choice, case by case. You are saying: my client has a grievance, but we are not going to settle it by force. Here are the facts. Here is the law. Here is our argument. Decide.

That is what makes law more than a profession. It’s part of the machinery by which a society keeps choosing reason over force, one dispute at a time — and it needs someone to operate that machinery. That’s you.

Which raises the next question, and it’s the one this course is really about. If law’s whole purpose is to replace force with reason, what does law actually do once a real dispute lands on a lawyer’s desk? Does it simply announce who’s right? Or does it do something more — something with moving parts, doors, deadlines, and a machinery of its own?

Law, it turns out, doesn’t have one job. It has two.

That’s where we go next.

A right and the machine that enforces it are not the same thing, and mixing the two up is the first mistake almost every junior makes. Your right to get that man out of your house might come from something as ordinary as ownership under property law. But nobody enforces a right merely because it exists on paper — enforcement has its own separate machinery, and for a civil dispute like this one, that machinery lives in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: the plaint, the summons, the hearing, the order. One law creates the right. A different law creates the door you walk through to enforce it. If the person who is right chooses the wrong door, you’ll find out exactly what happens — but hold that question until Lecture Nine, because that is where we go looking for the door itself.

Somewhere behind that thought, a much older conversation is quietly getting under way — the one that will run through the rest of this course, between a senior who has stopped being surprised by anything and a junior who is still learning to see what’s in front of her.

“You’ve just told me your client is right,” the senior said, without looking up from the file. “What’s the next sentence?”

“We file a case,” the junior said.

“Which case? For what relief? Through which door?”

She opened her mouth, then closed it again. “I don’t know yet.”

The senior almost smiled. “Good. That’s the correct answer today. You’ll know by Lecture Nine.”

Try this yourself, before you turn the page. Take three real disputes — from the news, from your own family, from a group chat, anywhere a conflict is genuinely alive — and for each one, write four words in a straight line: Right. Invasion. Relief. Procedural route. Don’t let yourself write the third word until you can defend the second. Don’t let yourself write the fourth until you can defend the third. If you get stuck there, that isn’t a failure. That is exactly where this course picks you up.

Continue the series

PreviousPreface — The First Brief

NextS1 L2 — Law Has Two Jobs

All thirty lecturesThe First Brief — full contents

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