ABSTRACT
This chapter offers a thesis about two possible consequences of thinking like a lawyer, and then proposes a mental game as a way of stepping away from pure lawyering and considering the context in which lawyers are doing it. The consequences are, in a way, opposite sides of the same coin how lawyers might come to think of the agglomeration of rules that make up the law. The first might be a cynical acceptance of the amorality of pure lawyering as an end in itself. A second possible consequence of pure lawyering is at the opposite end of the cynicism continuum an often unreflective and good-hearted willingness to accept that pure lawyering can lead to truth. The mental game for stepping away from pure lawyering consists of thinking about law in terms of contrasting but related metaphors of games and models. The chapter presents some examples of games and models as they appear in the law.
