Working for a largish law firm, I recall a conversation with a colleague related to a court case where I ventured an opinion based on what the law said.
He pointed out that at law school he was taught that there are three possible interpretations to any law.
First is going by what the law means by a strict interpretation of the words in the law in question.
Second is going by what the law was intended to mean by the person who wrote it.
Third is taking the words, and (if applicable) the intent of the law and then explaining to the jury what you want it to mean.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
