Why Football is Different from the Law
Recently, the Wall Street Journal Law Blog, applying yet another sports and law analogy, asked: Why aren’t instant replays reviewed de novo? That is, why is “conclusive” or “indisputable” proof required to reverse a call on the field? Why not take a fresh new look at the play when reviewing video?
I’m probably in a very small minority, but I think the question answers itself: because sports plays need to be called 100% impartially, not necessarily 100% accurately. The officials on the field are human. Absent bias (say, towards the home team) or outright corruption, a call should not be reversed unless the video evidence is “conclusive.”
So, to some extent, I take issue with the analogy applied in the WSJ article. However, the post is actually quite educational and presents the subject matter in a clever way. I’d also consider it helpful, since the role of the appellate courts is not well-understood among non-lawyers.
I just wouldn’t take any similarity between the courts and football - - or any sport - - too far.
Although there are no laws that require the assistance of an attorney in estate planning, we highly recommended it. A "do-it-yourself" will or generic trust may actually be more expensive than consulting a lawyer. Generic forms often do not address the legal requirements of New York or Connecticut. They also will not take into account individual wishes. And then, of course, there may be tax issues that will need to be resolved.