Recently in Legal writing Category

Posted by Wayne Schiess: "I wish I had known that becoming a good legal writer would take years.

I thought I was a good writer in college. I also thought the basic training I received in law school would enable me to write well in practice. I was wrong.

I just finished reading the book Outliers, by Malcolm Gladwell. In it he reports on a theory of developing expertise. The theory suggests that it takes 10,000 hours to develop expertise in a particular area. If the theory is right, it certainly applies to legal writing. So if you work 2000 hours per year, and you spend 1000 of those hours writing, becoming an expert legal writer would take you 10 years. That's a long time..."


Continue reading this interesting post by clicking on the author's name.

Source: Legalwriting.net Blog, 11 March 2010. Copyright 2008. Reproduced with permission of the author

This post was written by Mister Thorne: "My experience is that many attorneys are dead wrong.

They think the best writing is what most people (including other attorneys) can't follow, so they turn out the sort of convoluted, long-winded constructions that make professional writers wince, like this nonsense...

My experience is that the clerks and judges who have to read what attorneys write don't appreciate convoluted, long-winded constructions. They value their time, and they don't like to waste it trying to determine if a sentence is well formed, or not...

Well . . . if you're an attorney and you think (or you've been taught to believe) that bad writing (e.g., way too much copy and awkwardly arranged) is good (e.g., worth hundreds of dollars per hour to generate), then read:

• Legal Writing in Plain English
• Legal Writing: Sense and Nonsense
• What Makes for Good Legal Writing
• Wordsmithing

Full text and active links are available by clicking on the author's name.

Source: Set in Style, 2 March 2010, reproduced with permission of the author

This post was written by Evan Schaeffer: "Leslie O'Flahavan at Writing Matters concludes that using "and/or" is "just plain dumb."

To find out why, read her post, which includes lots of support from writing experts.

At the (new) legal writer, Raymond Ward adds to the debate, concluding that while not "plain dumb," he does try to avoid using "and/or."

To reach the blog post and the active links, click on the author's name.

Source: Trial Practice Tips Weblog, 23 February 2010, reproduced with permission of the author.

This post was written by Simon Fodden: "In legal documents it's the job of print to deliver the message smoothly and then get out of the way as fast as possible. Lots of things go into making this possible, as any book or magazine publisher will tell you, including the choice of typeface, point size, space between lines (leading) and colour of paper. Yet, when it comes to the preparation of legal documents the profession seems to be willfully ignorant about what makes for persuasive print, favouring remnants of the typewriter age combined with bad aspects of word processing technology.

I want to focus now on only one issue: the use of justified text -- that is, text printed in such a way that the right margins of all lines are equal. (The alternative -- where lines of text are more or less the same length -- is known as "ragged right.")..."

Continue reading this interesting by clicking on the author's name.

Source: Slaw.ca, 21 January 2010.

Reproduced with permission of Simon Fodden, founder of Slaw.

This post was written by Wayne Schiess: "Jim McElhaney has for many years given great advice on litigation in the ABA Journal. In the January 2010 issue, he recommends against using the following words in examining a witness. I'm against the same words, for the same reasons, in legal writing:

Prior and subsequent: "Before" and "after" are perfectly good words. Use them instead.
Previous: Worse than "prior."
Contemporaneously: Worse than "previous." "At the same time" is understood instantly.
Have occasion to: Needless clutter that often follows "did you . . . ?" Don't use it.
With respect to: An awkward way to say "about" or "concerning."

...

Continue reading this interesting post at the source site listed below.

Source: Legalwriting.net Blog, 6 January 2010

This post was written by Evan Schaeffer: "After you've written your first draft, you'll want to make sure it's persuasive. You'll find some tips in my article "Five Steps Towards Persuasive Writing," first published in the Illinois Bar Journal."  

The active link is available at the source site listed below.

Source: The Trial Practice Tips Weblog, 17 December 2009

Posted by Bruce Carton: "Attention all lawyers who practice before United States Bankruptcy Judge Robert Kressel, D. Minn.: He has just about had it with your crappy "legalese" and he has a 19-point plan to get you writing like a real person again.

This is just a taste. Here is the full list of things you won't be doing any longer in Judge Kressel's court."

The active links are available at the source site listed below.

Source: Legal Blog Watch, 11 December 2009

Posted by Evan Schaeffer: "Your choices for a citation style?

The Bluebook. The Greenbook. The Maroonbook. Plus others, which you'll find listed in an article at the University of North Texas: "Citing Legal Materials/Legal Style Manuals."

What's important isn't so much the one you use, but that you choose one and use it consistently throughout any single document.

Otherwise, you'll look sloppy, an impression that will cast your legal reasoning in a negative light.

Further reading: "Communicating Your Authority," by Maureen B. Collins, Illinois Bar Journal, 12/03.

The active links are available at the source site listed below.

Source: The Trial Practice Tips Weblog, 3 December 2009

Posted by Raymond Ward: "Writing guru Roy Peter Clark has come up with a great word for the mental work done before putting fingers to keyboard: prevision. It's the first of three stages in the writing process: prevision, vision, revision. Prevision is "[w]hat to call that period of mental and physical rehearsal that precedes coming to a full understanding of what your story is really about--before you truly 'see' the story."

Me, I spend a majority of my briefwriting time in the prevision stage: digesting the record, researching the law, looking for what pop-song writers call the hook. Why? Because before you hit the road, you'd better figure out where you're going."

The active links are available at the source site listed below.

Source: the (new) legal writer, 20 November 2009

Posted by Allison Shields: "This is my final post in my series recapping this year's ABA National Solo and Small Firm Conference. One of my favorite sessions was the session on persuasive writing presented by Lisa Solomon and NY judge Gerald Lebovits.

Lisa Solomon began her presentation by reminding the audience that to write persuasively, you must keep the client's (or judge's) point of view in mind. If you want to persuade, tell a compelling story - stories allow people to persuade themselves.

In a brief, the statement of the facts is the opportunity to tell your story. Your statement of facts sets the stage for your argument - you can't argue until you've accurately set forth the facts. To make an impression and make your brief more like a compelling story, name your 'characters' - don't keep using 'plaintiff' and 'defendant.'

Whether you're writing for the court or for your potential clients, anticipiate and address common or known objections head-on...

In addition to your story or theme, organization and sentence structure are important in persuasive writing... 

Write in plain English, use positive rather than negative language, and write in the active voice...

Don't over-state...

Solomon offers that social proof works...

Finally, Solomon says that your conclusion is your "call to action," both in marketing and in your legal writing. Let the judge know what relief you're seeking. Let your audience know what you want them to do next."

Full text and the active link are available at the source site listed below.

Source: Legal Ease Blog, 29 October 2009