The other day, I was reading about James R. Newman, an American lawyer and mathematician, practicing law in New York between 1929 and 1941. He held a number of positions in the US government, and he helped to draft the «Atomic Energy Act of 1946.» This post, however, is not about him, but about the conceptual similarities of Mathematics and Law.
You see, mathematics is about defining axioms and assumptions, then applying operations and conversions, thus proving or deducing something new or additional, or solving a problem or answering a question. When you think about it, law is pretty much the same thing: You have a case to prove. You use basic legislation (equivalent of axioms and assumptions), then provide a series of arguments, precedents and other proofs (operations and conversions) to expect to prove your case, or to set-up a contract or a negotiation.
On the other hand, there is one important difference between the two domains. In mathematics, the outcome (the proof or the deduction of something new), should be automatic. That is, if the author has not made a fundamental error, what he/she proves is correct and validated. In the case of the law, however, there will always be a question of validating by a third party, be it a judge, a jury, or an eventual court settlement if a contract is challenged.
So, can a good mathematician become a good lawyer? I have no idea, but if we consider law as an extension of philosophy, and since I know of many philosopher-mathematicians, then we can presume that a mathematician could make for a good lawyer, as long as he/she accepts to be verbose, instead of short and formula-based.
Paris, October 17, 2022
Zeejay