Lawyer and philosopher have many things in common and very slight differences; staring from university education to on-court argument. Many lawyers do not know that attaining philosopher's characteristics would benefit their professionals. This article aspires to reveal the duplicates between lawyer and philosopher.

Lawyer and philosopher are all above argument in defending their stances; no matter the culprit's or victim's side. This is the very first similarity that lawyer and philosopher is obliged to aggregate as many evidence and interpreter those evidence to be in favor of their stance.

However, I think that lawyer should be philosopher and not philosopher should be lawyer, because history has taught us that philosopher's mind is more sophisticated and civilized than that of the lawyer whose mind seem condensed, because of money-steering. To a further extent, philosophy is a more aged subject than the law. And because philosopher uses his or her mind more frequent than the lawyer.

The second similarity is about interpretation. Again, lawyer and philosopher have interpretational power of any merits (matter of fact). Lawyer and philosopher can interpret any subject into a complete different point of view. Plato and Buddha interpreted that the human world is always on the flow of changing, but the latter philosopher says that the world is real.

Lawyer should behave like philosopher, because philosopher has endless perspiration and inspiration to go to the core and theme of the problem and this is the sharpest argument that is really hard to fight back.