By Donald M. Fenton
In the legal profession, background matters. A lawyer’s undergraduate education shapes how they perceive problems, evaluate evidence, and advocate for solutions. Traditionally, many lawyers come from business, political science, or liberal arts background. However, there is a growing argument — and one worth serious consideration — that a foundation in engineering or the physical sciences produces a lawyer better equipped to serve society’s complex and technical legal needs.
Lawyers with a business background are trained to win arguments. They interpret circumstantial facts, recognize patterns, and apply rules of law to craft persuasive narratives aimed at favorable decisions. The courtroom becomes a battlefield where strategy, precedent, and rhetorical skill reign supreme. These lawyers are skilled tacticians, often focused less on the nature of the problem itself and more on achieving a desirable outcome for their client, regardless of broader context or long-term implications.
Contrast this with the mindset of a lawyer trained in engineering. These professionals approach problems differently. They examine facts through the lens of physical reality and objective systems. Their reasoning is built upon data, cause-and-effect logic, and the foundational laws of science — not merely persuasive storytelling. Instead of seeking a win, they seek clarity. They do not claim certainty when it is unjustified; instead, they present thoughtful uncertainty grounded in rigorous analysis. Their goal is not to “win” in the conventional legal sense, but to solve a problem by leading the judge (or jury) to a solution through deductive reasoning.
This fundamental difference in mindset matters greatly. A business-trained lawyer may argue within a bounded space, often ignoring the complexities of real-world systems — especially in cases involving technology, healthcare, or infrastructure.
On the other hand, the engineer-lawyer understands systems, tolerates ambiguity, and defines problems with a precision that legal disputes increasingly demand. Their training inherently respects the boundaries of the problem space and the human factors involved.
In short, lawyers with business backgrounds play checkers — quick, tactical, and centered on immediate wins. Engineers play chess — strategic, analytical, and centered on long-term outcomes. One seeks to outmaneuver the opponent; the other seeks to understand and resolve the problem.
This is not to disparage lawyers with business backgrounds. Their skills are essential and valued. But our legal system — and society at large — increasingly faces challenges involving artificial intelligence, cybersecurity, climate change, infrastructure failure, and medical technology. These issues are inherently scientific. They require legal minds who can understand, interpret, and litigate within a technical framework.
Therefore, law schools — and the profession as a whole — should begin encouraging more students from science and engineering backgrounds to enter law. Legal education would benefit from more applicants who think in systems, who appreciate uncertainty, and who solve rather than simply argue.
The goal of law should not be to win at all costs but to serve justice by resolving disputes with precision and integrity. If we want lawyers who solve problems instead of just scoring points, then the path forward is clear: more engineers at the bar.
(Donald Fenton is a retired Senior Engineer from Ford Motor Co., where he concluded a distinguished career in 2022 after nearly 50 years in the Detroit automotive industry. He now pursues a second career in law, dedicating much of his time to legal studies and contributing his engineering expertise to local law firms.
In the legal profession, background matters. A lawyer’s undergraduate education shapes how they perceive problems, evaluate evidence, and advocate for solutions. Traditionally, many lawyers come from business, political science, or liberal arts background. However, there is a growing argument — and one worth serious consideration — that a foundation in engineering or the physical sciences produces a lawyer better equipped to serve society’s complex and technical legal needs.
Lawyers with a business background are trained to win arguments. They interpret circumstantial facts, recognize patterns, and apply rules of law to craft persuasive narratives aimed at favorable decisions. The courtroom becomes a battlefield where strategy, precedent, and rhetorical skill reign supreme. These lawyers are skilled tacticians, often focused less on the nature of the problem itself and more on achieving a desirable outcome for their client, regardless of broader context or long-term implications.
Contrast this with the mindset of a lawyer trained in engineering. These professionals approach problems differently. They examine facts through the lens of physical reality and objective systems. Their reasoning is built upon data, cause-and-effect logic, and the foundational laws of science — not merely persuasive storytelling. Instead of seeking a win, they seek clarity. They do not claim certainty when it is unjustified; instead, they present thoughtful uncertainty grounded in rigorous analysis. Their goal is not to “win” in the conventional legal sense, but to solve a problem by leading the judge (or jury) to a solution through deductive reasoning.
This fundamental difference in mindset matters greatly. A business-trained lawyer may argue within a bounded space, often ignoring the complexities of real-world systems — especially in cases involving technology, healthcare, or infrastructure.
On the other hand, the engineer-lawyer understands systems, tolerates ambiguity, and defines problems with a precision that legal disputes increasingly demand. Their training inherently respects the boundaries of the problem space and the human factors involved.
In short, lawyers with business backgrounds play checkers — quick, tactical, and centered on immediate wins. Engineers play chess — strategic, analytical, and centered on long-term outcomes. One seeks to outmaneuver the opponent; the other seeks to understand and resolve the problem.
This is not to disparage lawyers with business backgrounds. Their skills are essential and valued. But our legal system — and society at large — increasingly faces challenges involving artificial intelligence, cybersecurity, climate change, infrastructure failure, and medical technology. These issues are inherently scientific. They require legal minds who can understand, interpret, and litigate within a technical framework.
Therefore, law schools — and the profession as a whole — should begin encouraging more students from science and engineering backgrounds to enter law. Legal education would benefit from more applicants who think in systems, who appreciate uncertainty, and who solve rather than simply argue.
The goal of law should not be to win at all costs but to serve justice by resolving disputes with precision and integrity. If we want lawyers who solve problems instead of just scoring points, then the path forward is clear: more engineers at the bar.
(Donald Fenton is a retired Senior Engineer from Ford Motor Co., where he concluded a distinguished career in 2022 after nearly 50 years in the Detroit automotive industry. He now pursues a second career in law, dedicating much of his time to legal studies and contributing his engineering expertise to local law firms.
