Integrating Critical Law Case Studies into Your Business Meeting Discussions

Law education has a lot to teach us, and not just to those who work directly in the field of law. While most businesses require local legal experts to manage acts of legislation as they apply specifically to an organization’s industry, the benefits of studying law go beyond the professional parameters. This is unfortunate for companies that could otherwise use crucial legal context to aid decision-making, and as such can benefit from relevant professional development activities featuring important legal topics. In fact, meeting spaces in Indonesia and other parts of Southeast Asia can actually incorporate these learning opportunities into their day-to-day activities.

For example, important legal cases can help hoteliers and corporate decision-makers alike to improve meeting outcomes, effectively enacting resolutions to business issues under discussion. Indeed, many organizations find that behind-the-glass-doors meetings are most effective when counsel is offered in both qualitative and analytical contexts. This balance can be achieved through the use of real-world law cases used to support corporate strategies during internal trainings or otherwise.

In this way, the confluence of superior conference settings and lawyer-derived case studies can offer powerful results in a world where data-savvy decision-making is expected and rewarded above all else – and they’re available nearby. For instance, the case study example below could almost have been set in Indonesia, making it particularly relevant for Indonesian and other ASEAN-based organizations alike.

Harvard Law School’s best known case study is respectably entitled “Pierson v. Post” and examines the conduct of one individual crossing paths with what seems to be another man’s almost-sought deer. Here are some key highlights:

The case study concluded that under the circumstances, Mr. Pierson’s actions did not result in a legal right to the creature:

“[T]he killing…by Pierson…permitted Post [to lay claim to the animal], and Post thereby acquired the property in his own right. At the time of killing, assuming the animal was privately owned by Post, Pierson had no right to interpose his individual claim in the face of Post’s claim.”

These excerpted points of a mostly unsympathetic legal judgment are what “Pierson v. Post” is famous for exhibiting, and they are clear violations of ethics that would not fly in many of today’s more psychotically driven business environments. The verdict here is far less important than the way business professionals are encouraged to discuss it – as per common practice – in the aforementioned under-glass-jurist ways. These are what led to the court’s decision in the first place. In fact, it is this line of thinking that makes Pierson a respected name among law cases to study and sets it apart so clearly from the pack.

Today’s business executives still frequently encounter ethics violations in less-than-standard personal conduct across the globe. In order to improve overall corporate ethics, businesses understand legal cases are frequently the best way to improve outcomes. This is because they:

Law cases to study are thus extremely important. They are also commonplace, and these lessons are integrated into professional improvement activities where they can do the most good, such as local conference spaces in Indonesia or elsewhere.