How did Trump beat a candidate like Hillary Clinton?

We are all taught that if you do certain things in life, you’d get certain results. So we let our actions determine the outcome.

In case of Hillary Clinton, she was the perfect candidate on paper to beat Donald Trump. She had three decades of political experience, educational qualifications, public support, desired demeanour expected from a presidential candidate. She was by all means, the better candidate. Yet she lost the elections.

Not only did she lose, she lost to Donald Trump!

Trump is everything one did not want in a presidential candidate. He had no political background or qualifications. He was a reality show star, a celebrity and a businessman! He may have had public support due to this. But he was a rule breaker in every sense of the word.

Trump presidential election race was marred with financial scams, sex scandals, accusations of sexual assaults and harassment, divisive geo-political views, racist remarks, sexist remarks, etc.

He was obnoxiously loud throughout the campaign to say the least. Yet, he won! His policies ranging from the Mexico wall, immigration, trade have drawn criticism from various facets. His knowledge and twitter rants attacking various members of people or media criticising him has been as unpresidential as possible.

Trump has come in like a wave and changed the rules such that there is no going back, not anytime soon. He has shattered the rules, torn the playbook and basically changed the game of politics, as he emerged as the winner.

So how does the game work now? Are there any rules left? Is rule breaking the trend now?

Let’s compare this to lawyers. What are we taught back in law school?

We are literally to play by the old book. We have a set of laws that we need to work with. But everyday, the game changes ever so slightly.

As a lawyer should we be a rule breaker or someone who abides by them?

We all want to win. But the ‘how’ is now evolving.

I remember as a young lawyer, I was idealistic and wanted to play by the book. There is nothing wrong with that, except that lawyers need to be unbiased.

You may have to defend the people to the best of your abilities and by the book, in morally challenging situations. Then what do you do? Everyone is entitled to legal representation and being heard. So as a lawyer, if you must defend someone who is thought of as a criminal before the trial, what do you do?

Being a lawyer, I have had this discussion more times than I can count. I have been asked by laymen how can one represent or defend someone accused of rape or murder or financial scams, etc. in the first place.

To them my response has been this: we are lawyers and our job is to present the facts and evidence before the judge who decides the matter. We are merely ensuring that both sides are being represented and heard to the best possible extent. We are not the judges. It is not our job to prematurely decide things. Everyone is entitled to a fair trial, devoid of personal biases.

Let us say, if Nirav Modi or Vijay Mallya come to you for representation, would you turn them away because of the media reports and public image, etc. Would you not examine the evidence and facts and present them in the best possible manner to the judges? Or would you decline representation to them?

As lawyers, should you be playing by the book or reinvent the rules?

In legal drama series, like Law and Order, Suits, The Good Wife, Boston Legal, the protagonists are shown to be the rule breakers or idealistic in nature. There is no middle ground. They try every trick in the book or beyond to get the desired results.

So for lawyers, should you be going by the status quo or trying something different?

Let me tell you the story of a couple lawyers from the elite institutes of law, who went ahead and broke all established rules.

So there were two lawyers who realised while studying, that the things taught in college, the manner of education needs a revamp. They were being taught the legal provision, concepts and theories. But there was a problem. There was no practical application of law.

They started wondering how can education be revamped so as to include the practical application of all the theoretical knowledge that was being imparted as part of the curriculum.

Then they come with the idea that would change the face of legal education as we know it.

On their pursuit to making launched LawSikho, an online legal education platform.

The idea behind this is simply to bridge the gap in the traditional legal education. The gaps like subjects that are needed on the job, but not always taught so in law school. LawSikho has painstakingly put hundreds of hours in creating media law course, cyber law course, business law course, arbitration law course, criminal law course, corporate tax law course, IBC law course, company law course.

You can check out the detailed courses offered here.

These courses are based on study material and practical application of the same by way of exercises, assignments, and article writing. These courses ensures that not only you possess the necessary knowledge of the subject, but you’re able to apply them in real life situations. The exercises helps you develop not only your drafting skills, but also improves your strategic and logical thinking. So be it in an internship or a job, you’re able to outperform others because this gives you an edge over the rest studying only the traditional courses.

Both these lawyers who co-founded LawSikho, are developing one amazing course after the other in order to fill the multiple gaps in practical learning. They are doing it relentlessly and one day at a time.

The point is their irreverent attitude of the status quo and mediocrity, has resulted into something that will bring a systematic change and help evolve the existing system. Their breaking of rules make them a winner, either way.

Now the question that I am left with is this: Are you a ruler breaker or not?

Do let me know via email, what makes you a winner: rule breaking or abiding them.