No, there was no change in topic, merely a correction to an incorrect absolute statement: “the vast majority of what lawyers do has nothing to do with judges.”

No, there was no change in topic, merely a correction to an incorrect absolute statement: “the vast majority of what lawyers do has nothing to do with judges.” To say it has nothing to do with judges is the overstep. Those who practice know that the end-state of almost all legal analysis is “what would the judge say?” and it’s laughable to think that the prototypical lawyer doesn’t actively consider how their work will be interpreted by legal authorities. As a layperson, you saw the commentary about communication and preparedness and you thought this was an article about professional decorum and skillsets. It is not: the author saved the punchline for the end, and tied his observations about the practice of law, jurisdictional incongruities, and legal culture under the deft umbrella of legal realism and its affects on the above. How does it affect or undermine lawyers’ interpretation of the law? How do judges weigh the various influences that impact their decision making? And, all this together, what kind of legal culture is created from the variance of these actors and factors? But hey, let’s make this fun. You list an area of law that does not interact in any way with judges or jurisprudence, and I’ll respond appropriately.