The Art of Lawyering: Where Creativity Meets Craft

On the first day of class with my undergraduate pre-law students at George Mason University, I have them engage in an introductory activity. The activity, which features a large word cloud, asks students to think about what comes to mind when they hear the word “lawyer.” The screen populates quickly with words like argumentative, analytical, smart, logical, wealthy, serious, and powerful. 

One word is notably absent: creative. And yet, some of the best lawyers I know, who write compelling briefs, craft winning arguments, negotiate effectively, and find unexpected solutions to complex issues, are some of the most creative people I have ever met. Why is it that we are so often taught to view lawyers as one-dimensional, when the practice of law demands someone who can think effectively outside of the box—not just logically, but creatively? The two are not mutually exclusive. To truly understand what it means to “think like a lawyer,” we need to rethink the traditional lawyer archetype.

Rethinking the Lawyer Archetype

Lawyers are often portrayed as rigid, rule-bound thinkers who excel through memorization, logic, and precedent. In the public imagination and, unfortunately, in many pre-law and law school settings, lawyers are one-dimensional: brains over imagination, reason over innovation. I posit that the practice of law demands more than sharp logic and intellectual rigor. It requires the ability to frame arguments in new ways, to see opportunities where others see obstacles, and to advocate for clients through nuanced and often unconventional strategies. None of this is possible without creativity.

There is a reason it is called the art of lawyering. Like any art form, lawyering involves interpretation, judgment, and expression. Great lawyers, much like artists, are constantly making choices about how to tell a story, what to emphasize, and how to connect with their audience. If we treat law solely as a science or a set of formulas to memorize, we risk ignoring the very qualities that make the most effective advocates stand out. Just as we encourage innovation and imagination in music, painting, or writing, we must also prioritize creativity in legal education and practice. 

Creativity as a Legal Imperative

I first began to understand the connection between creativity and law long before I ever set foot in a law school classroom. Growing up, I often accompanied my grandfather, a former practicing attorney, to local courthouses where I would sit quietly in the gallery and observe the proceedings. It was there, long before I had the vocabulary to describe it, that I began to grasp what made certain lawyers stand out. The most effective ones weren’t necessarily the loudest or most aggressive, but the ones who could craft a compelling story. They took raw facts, interpreted them meaningfully, and presented them in a way that connected logically, persuasively, and creatively. 

As a musician, that resonated with me. Just as a performer interprets a piece of sheet music, transforming notes on a page into something expressive and alive, so too does a lawyer interpret legal facts, shaping them into a narrative that moves a decision-maker. Each case requires more than passive observation; it demands an understanding of the human stakes and an ability to articulate the nuances that might not be immediately apparent. When I entered my first legal job, I found that effective lawyering required the same creative judgment I had developed through years of musical training, balancing structure with interpretation, clarity with tone, and logic with emotional resonance.

That experience affirmed what I now teach my students: creativity isn’t a “nice to have” in the legal profession – it is essential. It is what allows lawyers to act not just as analysts, but as advocates. 

Thinking Laterally 

As such, one of the most valuable creative tools a lawyer can develop is the ability to think laterally. Coined by psychologist Edward de Bono in his book Creativity Step by Step, lateral thinking refers to solving problems through indirect, imaginative, or non-obvious approaches, rather than relying solely on deductive reasoning. De Bono explains the difference this way: “If vertical thinking entails digging a hole in which to plant your idea, lateral thinking entails looking for new areas to dig.”

In the spring semester of my undergraduate Jurisprudence Learning Community course, I introduce this concept through what seems like a simple question: How would you get from A to C? Most students begin with the logical answer: B comes between A and C. That’s vertical thinking—linear, deductive, and efficient. Then I challenge them to think differently: What if “A to C” is part of a word like attic or arctic? Suddenly, the path isn’t sequential, it’s conceptual.

This exercise is not a silly brain teaser. It mirrors the kind of cognitive flexibility required in legal practice, where attorneys must interpret ambiguous facts, construct arguments from multiple angles, and make space for nuance. Relying solely on vertical thinking—moving from rule to conclusion—can limit our range of solutions. By incorporating lateral thinking, we train ourselves to see new possibilities, reframe problems, and connect ideas in unexpected but meaningful ways.

It also helps mitigate the effects of cognitive bias. When we assume the first answer is the only answer, we risk falling into mental traps like anchoring, confirmation bias, or tunnel vision. Lateral thinking encourages students to pause before jumping to what seems obvious, and instead explore the widest possible field of options before narrowing in. It’s a mindset that welcomes curiosity, values ambiguity, and often leads to the most innovative outcomes.

In legal education, where so much emphasis is placed on “thinking like a lawyer,” lateral thinking reminds us that legal reasoning isn’t just about following a logical path. It is also about designing new ones.

Moving Beyond Precedent

Creativity in law isn’t just about persuasive writing or courtroom storytelling. It also plays a critical role in how we interpret and apply the law itself. One of the biggest hurdles new lawyers face is the belief that precedent is the final word on every issue. After years of legal education emphasizing “thinking like a lawyer,” many new attorneys understandably walk into practice believing that if there is no case directly on point, there are few viable paths forward.

However, as attorney Parker Moore insightfully puts it in a Lawline podcast episode, “Precedent isn’t the end-all be-all of legal practice.” In fact, the most impactful lawyers are often those who know how to extend precedent by analogy, apply it in new ways, or thoughtfully challenge it when it no longer serves justice. Moore explains that while law school teaches us to value precedent (and rightly so), it can also unintentionally leave early-career lawyers feeling shackled. When there is no exact case to cite, some assume there is no legal argument to be made.

That mindset limits the evolution of the law.

Without creative thinking, the law becomes static. Precedent becomes not a foundation to build upon, but a ceiling we fail to push beyond. Yet, history shows us that the law is anything but inflexible. Social progress, constitutional interpretation, and legal reform have all relied on creative lawyers who dared to argue for something new and who treated precedent not as the only answer, but as one possible solution among many.

Creativity allows lawyers to see beyond what has been done, to imagine what could be done. It empowers us to reinterpret established principles, reframe old rules in light of new contexts, and advocate for change. As Moore puts it, the ability to move past a rigid view of precedent “really offers an opportunity for folks to expand their thinking about things and expand the way that law is implemented and really kind of change the thinking of established principles that are used in any arena of the legal practice.”

Teaching students and new lawyers to honor precedent without being confined by it is one of the most critical ways we can foster creativity in legal education and practice. Precedent is a tool, but it is not the whole toolbox.

Reclaiming Creativity: Confidence, Space, and Practice

In a powerful reflection on creativity and lawyering, Jessica Evans of the Corporate Accountability Lab writes about how many millennial attorneys claim, “I’m just not that creative.” But as she rightly observes, these same lawyers are navigating deeply complex legal issues and developing nuanced, strategic solutions every day. The disconnect isn’t a lack of creativity; rather, it is a lack of creative confidence.

Evans challenges us to rethink what creativity looks like in the legal field. Drawing from neuroscience and personal experience, she explores how the information overload of modern legal practice, combined with the pressures of law school and perfectionism, can actually dull our creative instincts. The result? A generation of lawyers who default to caution and precedent, retreating into detail-oriented “safe zones” instead of embracing risk, exploration, or failure as necessary parts of growth.

One especially compelling idea in Evans’s piece is that creativity is a muscle rather than a gift you’re born with. As such, it is a skill you can strengthen over time. Evans points to the work of neuroscientist Anna Abraham, who frames creativity as a two-part process: (1) generating novel ideas and (2) ensuring those ideas are appropriate to the context. Lawyers tend to excel at the second part. Yet true innovation in the law requires the first part, too: imagining what hasn’t been done, what isn’t already written, and what could be better. 

Finally, Evans makes a compelling case that creative confidence, or the belief that we are allowed to be creative, is half the battle. For lawyers, this is radical. We’re trained to be exact, risk-averse, and correct, but creativity thrives in imperfection. It requires the willingness to speak up before you feel ready, to try something unconventional, and to fail. As Evans puts it, we need the courage “to look stupid [...]. And then we will learn, and grow, and be better people and lawyers as a result.”

Bringing it All Together

The best outcomes in the law involve looking at problems from different angles, considering non-traditional options, and thinking outside the box to achieve favorable results. Creative thinking can also help lawyers avoid common cognitive biases—like anchoring, confirmation, or framing—that often limit perspective and narrow potential solutions. Problem-solving is the essence of what lawyers do. Law may be built on precedent, but the profession is ripe for change and ready for creativity.

The most effective lawyers blend logical, critical, and lateral thinking. At the heart of that work is storytelling, or the ability to package an argument or a client’s perspective in a persuasive, meaningful way. Thinking like a lawyer means more than just understanding statutes or precedent; it means approaching challenges with a mindset that is logical, analytical, and deeply creative. It’s time to reimagine the archetype of the lawyer: no longer just a skilled technician of the law, but a dynamic, creative thinker as well.

So the next time I ask my students to describe a lawyer, I hope to see that missing word finally take its rightful place on the screen.

Shea Holman is an Assistant Professor of Legal Studies at George Mason University, where she teaches various law and government courses and guides students through the Jurisprudence Learning Community (JPLC). She also serves as a member of the Schar School of Policy and Government’s Gender and Policy Center advisory board, contributing her expertise to advancing gender equity in policy and governance. Outside of George Mason, Shea serves as Counsel at the Purple Method, providing strategic legal guidance, overseeing policy development, and collaborating with stakeholders to create safer and more equitable workplaces.