Moreover, it is very rare that a trial lawyer will raise a truly novel issue, and there is a reason for this: Legal training is focused much more on analytic prowess than on creativity, and even when practicing litigators come up with original ideas, they tend not to raise them with the judge for fear that in a legal system governed by precedent, such novel ideas will seem “weird” and out of place. (To be sure, corporate and tax lawyers frequently come up with original ideas—or should we say “loopholes”—but not litigators.) As for “passion” and “persistence,” these play a much bigger role in fictional courtroom dramas than in real life, where such approaches often come across as over-dramatization and stubbornness. (By contrast, “command of the facts” is important, but it is a very rare lawyer who does not know the facts of her case.) In short, an ounce of truth is worth a pound of bluster, and carries the day in most cases.
In law and ethics , universal law or universal principle refers as concepts of legal legitimacy actions, whereby those principles and rules for governing human beings' conduct which are most universal in their acceptability, their applicability, translation, and philosophical basis, are therefore considered to be most legitimate. One type of Universal Law is the Law of Logic which prohibits logical contradictions known as sophistry. The Law of Logic is based upon the universal idea that logic is defined as that which is not illogical and that which is illogical is that which involves a logical contradiction, such as attempting to assert that an apple and no apple can exist at and in the same time and in the same place, and attempting to assert that A and not A can exist at and in the same time and in the same place.