• Home
  • About Me
  • Disclaimer

The Researching Paralegal

~ Articles and Research for Legal Professionals

The Researching Paralegal

Category Archives: Bad Legal Writing

10 Top Law-Related TED Videos.

20 Sunday Jul 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Bad Legal Writing, Computer Forensics, Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, Computer Virus, Copyright, Criminal Law, Cybersecurity, Digital Millenium Copyright Act, Discovery, Encryption, Evidence, Finance and Banking Law, Fraud, Google, Government, Identity Theft, Intellectual Property, Law Office Management, Legal Technology, Legal Writing, Legalese, Malware, Management, Patent Law, PC Computers, Plain Language, Presentations, Search Engines, Trial Tips and Techniques, Trojans, Video

≈ Comments Off on 10 Top Law-Related TED Videos.

Tags

Copyright, Crime, Eyewitness, Fashion Industry, Government, Internet, Legal Productivity Blog, Legalese, Patent Troll, Plain Language, TED, Tim Baran

Top 10 Legal TED Talks, by Tim Baran, Legal Productivity Blog

http://www.legalproductivity.com/op-ed/top-10-legal-ted-talks/

Have you heard of TED? It began in 1984 as a conference and now covers a wide range of topics in more than 100 languages.  Think of it as a massive brain trust that shares great ideas and information.

Each of the law-related TED talks listed in this article are worthwhile on their own: (1) four ways to fix a broken legal system; (2) eliminate legalese by using plain English; (3) how to beat a patent troll; (4) how the Internet will change government; (5) laws that choke creativity; (6) copyright law; (7) why eyewitnesses get it wrong; (8) how technology could make crime worse; (9) the Internet and anonymity online; and (10) how great leaders inspire. -CCE

Share this:

  • Print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Tweet
  • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Share on Telegram (Opens in new window) Telegram
Like Loading...

Classic Writing Tips From C.S. Lewis.

01 Tuesday Jul 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Bad Legal Writing, Legal Writing, Legalese, Plain Language, Proofreading, Readability

≈ Comments Off on Classic Writing Tips From C.S. Lewis.

Tags

C.S. Lewis, Editing, Ethos3, Grammar and Punctuation, Legal Writing, Plain Language, Readability, Scott Schwertly

5 Writing Tips by C.S. Lewis, the Purveyor of Childhood, by Scott Schwertly, the Founder and CEO of Ethos3

http://tinyurl.com/qzawhfs

It’s pretty likely that C.S. Lewis brought you a little bit of happiness when you were a child. As author of the ‘Chronicles of Naria’ series, C.S. Lewis created one of the most beloved children series of all time. As a result, he got loads of fan mail from his biggest fans: children. And being the nice purveyor of childhood glee that he was, he managed to respond to many of the letters, including one from Joan Lancaster, in which he included several tips on writing. Let’s see what we can learn about presentations from his poignant advice.

1. Always try to use the language so as to make quite clear what you mean and make sure your sentence couldn’t mean anything else.

This is great advice for the presenter as our job is disseminate information as clearly and simply as possible. In order to do so, use language that tells the audience what they need to know in the simplest way possible. Say what you want to say as simply as possible. Don’t overcomplicate your language for no reason.

2. Always prefer the plain direct word to the long, vague one. Don’t implement promises, but keep them.

This goes hand in hand with Lewis’s previous nugget of advice. Use plain, direct language in your presentation. You won’t sound smarter by using a ten-dollar word when a five-dollar word will do. Rather, you might come across as pretentious. Don’t alienate your audience with obscure language. Be as direct as possible.

3. Never use abstract nouns when concrete ones will do. If you mean ‘More people died’ don’t say ‘Mortality rose.’

Mr. Lewis is adamant about the importance of clear, direct language, isn’t he? Minimize abstraction as much as possible with the language you use. Be as clear and concrete as possible.

4. In writing. Don’t use adjectives which merely tell us how you want us to feel about the thing you are describing. I mean, instead of telling us a thing was ‘terrible,’ describe it so that we’ll be terrified. Don’t say it was ‘delightful’; make us say ‘delightfu’ when we’ve read the description. You see, all those words (horrifying, wonderful, hideous, exquisite) are only like saying to your readers, ‘Please will you do my job for me.’

This may be the best bit of Lewis’s advice, as it’s basically a snarky version of ‘show, don’t tell.’ Engage your audience by using vivid language that describes a situation instead of simply telling the audience how it made you feel using a range of blasé adjectives. Remember Jerry Weissman’s advice: Don’t make the audience think. Describe situations so clearly and in such a compelling nature that the audience won’t have any question as to what happened or how it made you feel.

5. Don’t use words too big for the subject. Don’t say ‘infinitely’ when you mean ‘very’; otherwise you’ll have no word left when you want to talk about something really infinite.

Lewis’s last piece of advice again addresses the need to use clear, precise language. Don’t exaggerate in your description of something as that would be an easy way to mislead your audience. Above all, if we are to follow Lewis’s advice in our presentations, use language that is as direct and to-the-point as possible. Your presentation will be much more accessible and well-received if you eliminate abstract, unclear language altogether.

Share this:

  • Print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Tweet
  • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Share on Telegram (Opens in new window) Telegram
Like Loading...

George Orwell’s “Politics and the English Language”

01 Tuesday Jul 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Bad Legal Writing, Editing, Legal Writing, Legalese, Plain Language, Proofreading, Readability

≈ Comments Off on George Orwell’s “Politics and the English Language”

Tags

Bad Legal Writing, Editing, George Orwell, Grammar and Punctuation, Legal Writing, Legalese, Plain Language, Politics and the English Language, Proofreading

Politics and the English Language, George Orwell’s Library

http://tinyurl.com/nsagx

Orwell’s 1946 essay, “Politics and the English Language” is a classic. Mr. Orwell actually had six, not five, excellent rules for effective writing. Follow these rules, and you cannot go wrong. -CCE

1. Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.

2. Never use a long word where a short one will do.

3. If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.

4. Never use the passive where you can use the active.

5. Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.

6. Break any of these rules sooner than saying anything outright barbarous.

 

Share this:

  • Print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Tweet
  • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Share on Telegram (Opens in new window) Telegram
Like Loading...

String Citations – Good or Bad Legal Writing Tool?

29 Sunday Jun 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Bad Legal Writing, Brief Writing, Citations, Legal Analysis, Legal Argument, Legal Writing, String Citations

≈ Comments Off on String Citations – Good or Bad Legal Writing Tool?

Tags

Bad Legal Writing, Brief Writing, BriefRight Blog, Kirby Griffis, Legal Writing, String Citations

String Theory, by Kirby Griffis, BriefRight Blog

http://briefright.com/string-theory

String citations – a good writing tool or a bad idea? Lengthy string citations, like long single-spaced block quotations, are never a good idea. Readers tend to skim or skip a big block of text.

A good rule of thumb is to never cite more than four cases in a string. Start the string with a signal. Use a parenthetical — an abbreviated summary of the case in parentheses at the end of the citation. Keep your parenthetical no longer than two lines. Anything longer defeats the purpose of using string citations. -CCE

Your summary judgment brief contains eleven distinct legal propositions, including the standard to be applied in ruling on summary judgment. You have researched each, and have found multiple cases. You have read them and highlighted them and they are sitting on your desk in eleven stacks. You have even sorted each stack, moving the most persuasive authorities (because they are from your state and circuit, or are more recent, or are from higher courts) to the front.

Now what?

Many lawyers will just list every one of the cases in a string cite. This, they think, shows the judge the weight of the authority behind your legal claims. The judge will see nine cases listed and think ‘Wow, I guess they win that point.’

It is not so. String cites are a bad idea, for multiple reasons. . . .

Share this:

  • Print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Tweet
  • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Share on Telegram (Opens in new window) Telegram
Like Loading...

Checked Your Readability Score Lately?

28 Saturday Jun 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Bad Legal Writing, Brief Writing, Editing, Legal Writing, Legalese, Microsoft Office, Plain Language, Proofreading, Word

≈ Comments Off on Checked Your Readability Score Lately?

Tags

Above the Law (blog), Bad Legal Writing, Editing, Legal Writing, Mark Herrmann, Microsoft Word, Readabilty Score, Steve Dykstra

Expose Your Weakness — Now! by Mark Herrmann, Above the Law Blog

http://abovethelaw.com/2014/06/expose-your-weakness-now/

Think you can write? Do these four things.

First, pull out the last brief that you wrote.

Not that one — that’s the final version, edited by guys who could write. We’re looking for your work, untouched by others. Find the unedited draft that you first circulated. (If you don’t have a draft brief handy, that’s okay. Find the last long email that you sent to someone who matters — to the partner, the client, the general counsel, or the CEO.)

Second, click through this link, which will tell you how to enable Microsoft Word’s ‘readability’ feature on your computer. Enable that feature.

Third, let the readability feature score your work.

Finally, take a handkerchief and wipe the spit out of your eye. (I bet you didn’t realize that a computer could spit in your eye.)

You didn’t notice the spit? Here it comes: Compare your readability score to the average readability score for the works of bestselling authors.

I didn’t even know about Microsoft’s readability feature until I published a column on legal writing last month. I argued in favor of using short sentences and the active voice. A reader — Steve Dykstra, who’s a legal recruiter and budding novelist in Toronto — promptly sent me an enlightening email. Steve also subjected my work — my column on legal writing — to Microsoft Word’s readability test. Steve then told me how my column compared to the work of bestselling authors. . . .

Share this:

  • Print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Tweet
  • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Share on Telegram (Opens in new window) Telegram
Like Loading...

Bad Thinking = Bad Writing. Makes A Lot Of Sense.

22 Sunday Jun 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Bad Legal Writing, Legal Writing

≈ Comments Off on Bad Thinking = Bad Writing. Makes A Lot Of Sense.

Tags

Chronicle of Higher Education, George Orwell, Law Students, Legal Writing, Rachel Toor, Scholarly Writing, Strunk and White

Bad Thinking Leads To Bad Writing, by Legal Writng Prof, Legal Writing Prof Blog

http://tinyurl.com/mr5g4x8

In a recent Chronicle of Higher Education article titled ‘Bad Writing and Bad Thinking,’ author Rachel Toor argues that some problems with students’ writing arise from their belief that they must write like others in their fields—even when that writing is clumsy. Instead, Toor says, students should follow George Orwell’s and Strunk and White’s advice about thinking and writing clearly. She adds, ‘Call me simple-minded, call me anti-intellectual, but I believe that most poor scholarly writing is a result of bad habits, of learning tricks of the academic trade as a way to try to fit in. And it’s a result of lazy thinking.’  Law students’ exposure turgid judicial opinions may explain some of the problems they face in learning legal writing.

Share this:

  • Print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Tweet
  • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Share on Telegram (Opens in new window) Telegram
Like Loading...

If You Want To Lose The Case, Just Write Like This.

15 Sunday Jun 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Bad Legal Writing, Brief Writing, Citations, IRAC, Legal Analysis, Legal Argument, Legal Writing, Legalese, Plain Language, Proofreading, Propositions and Headings, Quotations, Readability

≈ Comments Off on If You Want To Lose The Case, Just Write Like This.

Tags

Bad Legal Writing, Brief Writing, Eric Voight, Lawyerist Blog, Legal Writing

How To Lose Your Case, by Eric Voight, Lawyerist Blog

http://lawyerist.com/73849/how-to-lose-your-case/

Legal writers do this more than they realize, sometimes out of haste and short deadlines. These are common — and fixable — bad writing mistakes. -CCE

In litigation, you have to persuade judges that your client’s position is correct, but don’t forget about the gatekeepers. Your motions and briefs will probably be reviewed by a law clerk before it reaches the judge’s desk. Clerks for federal judges say they have reviewed many motions and briefs where it appeared that the attorneys didn’t care whether their clients prevailed.

I didn’t realize that attorneys would prefer to lose, not win, their case. But if your goal is losing, this article is for you. Be sure to incorporate these ideas from my law clerk friends into your motions and briefs — if you want to lose your case. . . .

Share this:

  • Print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Tweet
  • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Share on Telegram (Opens in new window) Telegram
Like Loading...

Writing For The Court – It’s Not All About Content.

15 Sunday Jun 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Bad Legal Writing, Brief Writing, Legal Argument, Legal Writing, Legalese, Plain Language, Proofreading, Readability

≈ Comments Off on Writing For The Court – It’s Not All About Content.

Tags

Brief Writing, BriefRight, Kirby Griffis, Legal Writing

TrialRight Again, by Kirby Griffis, BriefRight

http://briefright.com/trialright-again/

Picture yourself as the judge or the judge’s law clerk. You read briefs and other documents all day. Most are boilerplate language. When someone does have an original thought, the writer ruins it with redundancies and poor grammar and punctuation. 

Imagine the Court’s relief when someone writes a brief that makes a concise legal point supported by correctly formatted citations. This is a short article, but it makes a strong argument for clear writing. -CCE

Last week, I wrote about how some of the principles of briefwriting apply just as strongly to trial practice. There’s another important principle that applies strongly to each. I learned it years ago from an excellent trial lawyer: everything is evidence.

In court, the jurors start to evaluate who in the courtroom they can trust and believe from the moment they first walk through the door, from before voir dire to after closing argument. Their scrutiny is not limited to the content of your formal speeches and witness examinations: it extends to your demeanor as you sit at counsel table, how much you object and when, whether you fumble with exhibits, whether you arrive to court each day in a limo, and everything else that they can see. You must think about all of these things.
Similarly, in your legal briefs, the judge is not just paying attention to content. She is also influenced by how long the brief is, its formatting, its clarity, and many other factors as well. . . .

Share this:

  • Print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Tweet
  • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Share on Telegram (Opens in new window) Telegram
Like Loading...

Best Brief Writing Checklist.

08 Sunday Jun 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Bad Legal Writing, Brief Writing, Citations, Footnotes, Legal Analysis, Legal Argument, Legal Writing, Legalese, Plain Language, Proofreading, Quotations, Readability, Spell Checking, Statement of Facts, Summary of the Argument

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

Brief Writing, Citations, Hon. Patricia M. Wald, Legal Argument, Persuasive Writing, Proofreading

“Briefly Speaking,” Brief Writing – Best Practices, Washington State Court of Appeals, Division I, CLE

 http://tinyurl.com/lsrzxjy

This is the essence of writing a persuasive and winning brief. Each section is important. Ignore the guidance here at your peril.

The icing on the cake is the advice from the Hon. Patricia M. Wald, Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, taken from her article, “19 Tips from 19 Years on the Appellate Bench,” The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process, Vol. 1, No. 1 (Winter 1999).  She is right – this is your opportunity to tell your client’s story. Short and to the point is always more persuasive than long-winded recitations of fact and case law.

Make this your brief writing checklist. -CCE

Share this:

  • Print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Tweet
  • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Share on Telegram (Opens in new window) Telegram
Like Loading...

Do You Write Like A Tool? Here’s One Way To Find Out.

04 Wednesday Jun 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Bad Legal Writing, Legal Writing, Legalese

≈ Comments Off on Do You Write Like A Tool? Here’s One Way To Find Out.

Tags

Above the Law (blog), Bad Legal Writing, Jay Shepherd, Legal Writing, Legalese

Small Firms, Big Lawyers: 20 Ways to Write Like a Tool, by Jay Shepherd, Above The Law Blog

http://tinyurl.com/6zxgxy8

Ever see Fight Club? Yeah, me neither. The 1999 Brad Pitt movie was more of a cult film than a commercial success, although it did make back its costs. But the movie did have a line that became something of a meme, and was once recognized by Premiere magazine as the 27th greatest line in movie history (which seems dubious, but whatever):

The first rule of Fight Club is you do not talk about Fight Club.

If only lawyers had the same rule.

You see, being a lawyer is like being a member of an elite club. OK, maybe not as elite as we like to think; there are more than a million members in the US. But elite enough. And the problem is, too many of us are dying to show off to others that we’re members of law club. And one of the ways we do it is by trying to sound like a lawyer when we speak, and especially when we write. This is a problem because sounding like a lawyer is the same as sounding like a tool.

I’ve come up with 20 lawyerisms that do nothing to advance the message you’re trying to send, but instead show that you’re a member of law club. And that you sound like a tool.

How many of the 20 do you use? . . .

Share this:

  • Print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Tweet
  • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Share on Telegram (Opens in new window) Telegram
Like Loading...

How To Remove “The Fluff” In Legal Writing.

25 Sunday May 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Bad Legal Writing, Brief Writing, Legal Analysis, Legal Argument, Legal Writing, Legalese, Motions

≈ Comments Off on How To Remove “The Fluff” In Legal Writing.

Tags

Brief Writing, Judge Lynn N. Hughes, Legal Writing, Legalese, Michigan Bar Journal, Plain Language

A Standard Motion Revised, by Judge Lynn N. Hughes, Plain Language, Michigan Bar Journal (May 2014)

http://www.michbar.org/journal/pdf/pdf4article2367.pdf

Judge Hughes eliminates unnecessary words, what he calls “the fluff.” In a simple, direct example, Judge Hughes clearly marks which words are meaningless, useless fillers.

You see this language used every day by lawyers and legal professionals. It is common as dirt. Some writers insist that archaic legalese is “required,” although there is no court rule, case law, or statute to support that opinion. It is not a “legal term of art.”

The point of legal writing is to persuade the reader – the court. Why do we add “the fluff”? Beats me. -CCE

Share this:

  • Print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Tweet
  • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Share on Telegram (Opens in new window) Telegram
Like Loading...

Garner’s Interview With Appellate Judges On Oral Argument and Brief Writing.

20 Tuesday May 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Appellate Judges, Appellate Law, Bad Legal Writing, Brief Writing, Court Rules, Courts, Federal District Court Rules, Federal Judges, Judges, Legal Analysis, Legal Argument, Legal Writing, Statement of Facts, Trial Tips and Techniques

≈ Comments Off on Garner’s Interview With Appellate Judges On Oral Argument and Brief Writing.

Tags

Brief Writing, Bryan Garner, Chief Judge Sandra Lynch, Judge Frank Easterbrook, Judge Pierre Leval, Judge Stephen Reinhardt, Jurisdiction, Legal Writing, Legal Writing Prof Blog, Oral Argument, Scribes Journal of Legal Writing

Scribes Journal Presents Interviews With Judges, By Legal Writing Prof, Legal Writing Prof Blog

http://tinyurl.com/najqatd

In the latest issue of the Scribes Journal of Legal Writing, Bryan Garner continues his series Scribes 5-14of interviews with judges. This time he talks with five United States Court of Appeals judges to collect some inside information about brief writing and oral argument. Here are some of the judges’ pithy quotes:

Judge (and former Chief Judge) Frank Easterbrook of the Seventh Circuit said a lawyer should know why the court has jurisdiction. He imagines having a button he could press to send a lawyer out to the street if the lawyer can’t explain the basis for appellate jurisdiction. ‘Because if we don’t have jurisdiction, why are we here?’

Judge Pierre Leval of the Second Circuit said the first thing he looks at in a brief is the argument headings ‘to get a sense of what’s involved.’  Then he can read the facts in context.

Chief Judge Sandra Lynch of the First Circuit said many lawyers look ‘frozen’ when a judge asks a question. But instead, they should think, ‘This is a great way that I can hit a few more balls out of the park; I can help my case.’

Judge Stephen Reinhardt of the Ninth Circuit likes briefs written in ‘simple, clear sentences.’ And he likes ‘a story that flows so you can tell what it’s about and why . . . something I can follow easily.’ . . .

Share this:

  • Print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Tweet
  • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Share on Telegram (Opens in new window) Telegram
Like Loading...

Legal Analysis & Writing Links.

05 Monday May 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Acronyms, ALWD, Bad Legal Writing, Citations, Internet, Legal Analysis, Legal Directory, Legal Writing, Legalese, Quotations, References, Research, The Bluebook

≈ Comments Off on Legal Analysis & Writing Links.

Tags

ALWD Citation Manual, Grammar, Legal Analysis, Legal Citation, Legal Writing, Lewis & Clark Law School, Punctuation, The Bluebook, Writing Resources

Legal Analysis and Writing, Grammar & Writing Resources, Lewis & Clark Law School

http://bit.ly/1kFtlHk

A nice assortment of writing resources.  -CCE

Share this:

  • Print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Tweet
  • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Share on Telegram (Opens in new window) Telegram
Like Loading...

Benchslap Open Season on Acronyms.

30 Wednesday Apr 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Acronyms, Appellate Law, Bad Legal Writing, District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals, Legal Writing, Legalese, Readability

≈ Comments Off on Benchslap Open Season on Acronyms.

Tags

Acronyms, Benchslap, Brief Writing, Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, D.C. Circuit Judge Kavanagh, D.C. Circuit Judge Silberman, Legal Writing, Legalese, Mark Hermann, Ross Guberman

Alphabet Attack, by Ross Guberman’s Legal Writing Blog

http://legalwritingpro.com/blog/alphabet-attack/

It wouldn’t be spring in America without some federal judges publicly criticizing attorneys in a genre now known as ‘benchslap.’

The offended court this time: the D.C. Circuit. The court’s target: acronyms in briefs filed in a complex telecom dispute. The benchslap: “’It is ordered . . . that the parties submit new briefs that eliminate uncommon acronyms used in their previously filed final briefs.’ The court even cited its own practice handbook for good measure: ‘[i]n briefs the use of acronyms other that those that are widely known should be avoided.’ . . .

Share this:

  • Print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Tweet
  • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Share on Telegram (Opens in new window) Telegram
Like Loading...

Making Sense When Writing For Non-Lawyers – It’s Not That Hard.

27 Sunday Apr 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Bad Legal Writing, Legal Writing, Legalese, Readability

≈ Comments Off on Making Sense When Writing For Non-Lawyers – It’s Not That Hard.

Tags

Above the Law (blog), Bad Writing, Compliance, Legal Writing, Mark Herrmann, Non-Lawyers

Why Are The Lawyers Pestering Us? Communicating About Law And Compliance, by Mark Herrmann, Above The Law Blog (with hat tip to Raymond Ward, the [new] legal writer blog)

http://tinyurl.com/mu8vg7g

At a law firm, law matters. Law is the center of the institution’s universe, and it’s all everyone is thinking about.

It’s the other functions that don’t matter: ‘Another email from IT? Telling me about interfaces and gigabytes? Why don’t those clowns leave me alone?’

‘Another email from finance hectoring me about time sheets? Don’t those morons know I’m busy?’

At corporations, law (and compliance) is an ‘other function.’ The businesses are concentrating on their businesses, and law and compliance — along with human resources, information technology, and finance — are, at best, a means to an end. If you mirror the other ‘shared services’ and send incomprehensible communications to the businesses, the businesses will soon realize that you’re just one of the pests, meant to be ignored.

Inevitably, if a business person accidentally steps over some legal line, you’ll hear that the business guy had no clue that the line existed: ‘Yeah, yeah. Now that you’re telling me about it, I understand that we have that rule. But how was I to know? The rule is buried on the fourth page of some impenetrable policy hidden somewhere in our computer system. I spend my time selling; I can’t waste time trying to make sense of your legalese.’

If you don’t sympathize with that guy, then you’ve been a lawyer for too long. His criticism is not just an excuse for having violated the rules; his criticism may well be the truth. How can you change that reality? . . . .

Share this:

  • Print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Tweet
  • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Share on Telegram (Opens in new window) Telegram
Like Loading...

Appellate Judges Give Advice On Winning An Appeal.

06 Sunday Apr 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, Appellate Judges, Appellate Law, Bad Legal Writing, Brief Writing, Citations, Judges, Legal Analysis, Legal Argument, Legal Writing, Proofreading, Texas Supreme Court

≈ Comments Off on Appellate Judges Give Advice On Winning An Appeal.

Tags

Appellate Briefs, Appellate Judges, Appellate Law, Chad M. Ruback, Dallas Bar Association Judiciary Committee, Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, Legal Analysis, Legal Writing, Texas, Texas Supreme Court

Appellate Judges Tell Dallas Lawyers How to Handle an Appeal, By Chad M. Ruback, Appellate Lawyer

http://tinyurl.com/ousooh9

The Dallas Bar Association Judiciary Committee recently hosted a panel discussion with three prominent appellate judges.  Catharina Haynes is the only federal appellate judge in the Dallas-Fort Worth area.  After years of sitting as a Dallas state trial court judge, she was appointed to sit on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.  Debra Lehrmann is the only Texas Supreme Court justice from Fort Worth.  Along with Chief Justice Nathan Hecht, she is one of only two Texas Supreme Court justices who began judicial service in North Texas.  After a distinguished career in a large Dallas law firm, Elizabeth Lang-Miers serves as a justice on the Fifth District Court of Appeals, which reviews the cases from Texas state trial courts in Dallas County and five other counties.

The three panelists offered a number of helpful tips for lawyers practicing before appellate courts. . . .

Share this:

  • Print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Tweet
  • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Share on Telegram (Opens in new window) Telegram
Like Loading...

What’s All the Fuss Over A Serial Comma?

26 Wednesday Feb 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Bad Legal Writing, Legal Writing

≈ Comments Off on What’s All the Fuss Over A Serial Comma?

Tags

Good Legal Writing Blog, John Hightower, People v. Walsh, Seiral Comma, Susan Hankin, Tiffany Johnson, University of Maryland Law School

The Case for the Serial Comma, by Tiffany Johnson, Good Legal Writing Blog

http://goodlegalwriting.com/2011/09/13/the-case-for-the-serial-comma/

I am a HUGE fan of the serial comma in most instances (especially in legal writing).  In this article, Susan Hankin at the University of Maryland Law School uses the reasoning of New York’s People v.Walsh to make a solid case for keeping that critical comma. . . .

Share this:

  • Print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Tweet
  • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Share on Telegram (Opens in new window) Telegram
Like Loading...

Litigator’s Self-Assessment Legal Writing Test.

24 Monday Feb 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Bad Legal Writing, Brief Writing, Legal Writing, Legalese, Litigation, Trial Tips and Techniques

≈ Comments Off on Litigator’s Self-Assessment Legal Writing Test.

Tags

Above the Law (blog), Comes Now, Hereinafter, Litigator's Self-Assessment Test, Mark Herrmann, Raymond Ward, the (new) legal writer blog, Thereof

Are You A Crappy Litigator? A Self-Assessment Test! by Mark Herrmann, Above The Law Blog (with hat tip to Raymond Ward at the (new) legal writer blog!)

http://abovethelaw.com/2014/02/are-you-a-crappy-litigator-a-self-assessment-test/

Not exactly the words I would choose to make the point, but I agree that the emphasis on short, clear sentences and paragraphs is more persuasive. -CCE

It’s so hard to judge yourself.

Deep in your soul you know that people who criticize you are idiots, and people who praise you are wise and sagacious.

How can you possibly tell if you’re any good at what you do?

I have the answer for you! I’ve created a litigators’ self-assessment test! Now you’ll know if you’re any good!

Here’s how it works: Take out the last brief you filed.

Do it. Now. You won’t learn anything if you don’t follow the rules. . . .

Share this:

  • Print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Tweet
  • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Share on Telegram (Opens in new window) Telegram
Like Loading...

Sayeth or Saith? Actually, It’s Neither.

22 Saturday Feb 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Affidavits, Bad Legal Writing, Legal Writing, Legalese

≈ Comments Off on Sayeth or Saith? Actually, It’s Neither.

Tags

17th Century, Affidavit, Bryan A. Garner, Further Affiant Sayeth Naught, Garner’s Dictionary of Legal Usage, LawProse, Legalese

LawProse Lesson #149: “Further Affiant Sayeth Naught,” by Bryan A. Garner, LawProse

http://www.lawprose.org/blog/?p=2506

Further affiant sayeth naught.

Many affidavits close with this classic legalese or some variation of it. Other than the obvious questions (‘What does it mean?’ and ‘Is it necessary?’), this phrase gives rise to two stylistic dilemmas.

Share this:

  • Print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Tweet
  • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Share on Telegram (Opens in new window) Telegram
Like Loading...

Former Appellate Law Clerk Emphasizes Brief Writing Skills.

19 Wednesday Feb 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Alabama Supreme Court, Appellate Judges, Appellate Law, Bad Legal Writing, Brief Writing, Judges, Legal Analysis, Legal Writing, Statement of Facts

≈ Comments Off on Former Appellate Law Clerk Emphasizes Brief Writing Skills.

Tags

Alabama Supreme Court, Appellate Judges, Brief Writing, Briefly Writing Blog, Chief Justice Sonny Hornsby, Justice Terry Butts, Legal Writing, Mike Skotnicki

The Most Important Thing I Learned on the Inside of the Alabama Supreme Court, by Mike Skotnicki, Briefly Writing Blog

http://tinyurl.com/mhq8a3m

An excellent post well worth reading. This short excerpt reminds us why quality legal writing is so critical in appellate advocacy. -CCE

[T]o win an appellate matter you must make your brief come alive, hold the reader’s attention, influence the reader to view your client favorably, and help guide the court to the result you want. With the paucity of oral argument, the appellate brief is very likely your only opportunity to present to the court the passion you hold for your client’s cause and that passion, though controlled, should be palpable. Your brief must be more like a compelling novel, telling a story of conflict, than the dry and lifeless tome that is most often submitted on appeal. If your brief is the one that the appellate judge or staff member goes back to again and again in preference to that of the opposing party as the matter is being considered, the chances of your client winning will climb immeasurably.  Sometimes having the “best” case or fact in your favor is enough for your client to win, but most appeals simply aren’t that easy. . . .

Share this:

  • Print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Tweet
  • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Share on Telegram (Opens in new window) Telegram
Like Loading...

Good Advice On How to Avoid Embarrassing Mistakes In An Appeal.

16 Sunday Feb 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, Appellate Law, Bad Legal Writing, Brief Writing, Case Law, Citations, Citations to the Record, Legal Analysis, Legal Writing, Mandatory Law, Primary Law, Proofreading, Research, Statement of Facts, Texas Supreme Court

≈ Comments Off on Good Advice On How to Avoid Embarrassing Mistakes In An Appeal.

Tags

Appellate Briefs, Appellate Law, Appellate Lawyer, Chad M. Ruback, Citations, Citations to the Record, Hyperbole, Justice Debra Lehrmann, Legal Writing, Proofreading, Statement of Facts, Texas Supreme Court

Common Mistakes Seen in Appellate Petitions and Briefs, by Chad M. Ruback, Appellate Lawyer

http://news.appeal.pro/appeals-to-texas-supreme-court/appellate-petitions-and-briefs/

Mr. Ruback served as a briefing attorney to the Fort Worth Court of Appeals. Here he shares the common mistakes that are normally seen in appellate writing. Because an appellate court never questions witnesses or hears evidence, the written documents submitted by the parties are all it has upon which to base its ruling. Sloppy and lengthy garbled arguments simply will not do. Mr. Ruback’s comments are worth noting.

I would like to add to Mr. Ruback’s list – neglecting to verify the accuracy of the appellate record while it remains in the jurisdiction of the trial court. It is a simple exercise to compare the record compiled by the trial court clerk using the Designation of Record and Counter-Designation of Record to make sure that the record is accurate.

This may seem a waste of time until the appellate record includes a deposition that was never admitted into evidence or a crucial piece of evidence is overlooked by the court clerk who assembled record for the appeal. No one is perfect; mistakes can happen.

Too often, counsel ignore this simple step. Personally, I would make sure the person you send to check the record put the trial exhibits together and/or was part of the trial team. Or to put it another way – how do you explain to a client that you couldl have avoided the appeal’s fatal flaw if you had checked the record before it was sent up on appeal? -CCE

Share this:

  • Print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Tweet
  • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Share on Telegram (Opens in new window) Telegram
Like Loading...

Legal Writing Faculty – It’s Okay To Sweat The Small Stuff.

16 Sunday Feb 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Bad Legal Writing, Citations, Education, Legal Writing, Legalese, Paralegals/Legal Assistants, The Bluebook

≈ Comments Off on Legal Writing Faculty – It’s Okay To Sweat The Small Stuff.

Tags

Above the Law (blog), Joe Patrice, Legal Assistants, Legal Writing, Legal Writing Course, Legal Writing Prof Blog, Local Rules, Louisa Heiny, NYU, Paralegals, S.J. Quinney College of Law, Santa Clara Law Professor Ray Bernstein, University of Utah, Yale

A Law Professor’s Detailed, Thoughtful, and Comprehensive ‘Local Rules’ for Class: A Response to “Above the Law,” Legal Writing Prof Blog (guest post from Louisa Heiny, Adjunct Professor of Law at the S.J. Quinney College of Law of the University of Utah, responding to recent post at Above The Law Blog)

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/legalwriting/2014/02/atl.html

I used to teach Legal Writing and Legal Analysis to paralegals. Students had to work hard to earn a good grade in those classes. Some students appreciated the emphasis on grammar and punctuation, adhering strictly to court rules and the Bluebook, the eradication of legalese, and the insistence that details matter. Regrettably, not every student felt the same way, and missed the point. There was a reason why the bar was set high for my students. I wanted them to succeed once they were on the job.

If I learned anything from teaching, it was that the majority of students, when challenged, will work hard to meet high standards and expectations set for the class. If a teacher’s expectation are low, the work turned in will be mediocre at best. Both law and paralegal students face tough competition upon graduation. Quality matters more than ever.

It is nice to see that there are still legal writing faculty who set insist on quality. -CCE

I admit it: I read Above the Law. I read it every day. It’s even on my Facebook feed. It’s sometimes snarky, often witty, and has published some of the most ridiculously funny cease and desist letters I’ve ever seen. I use material from Above the Law in class to show students what not to do.

I’ll also admit that when I read the headline in Above the Law, ‘A Law Professor’s Detailed, Ridiculous, Condescending ‘Local Rules’ For Class,’ I panicked. There was a serious possibility that I was about to read my own syllabus. I’m an adjunct, so there was also a possibility that I was about to be fired.

After a moment’s relief that I was not the target of ATL’s ire, I read the article. Written by Joe Patrice, the post skewers the ‘local rules’ created by Santa Clara Law Professor Ray Bernstein for his legal writing class. While my own syllabus isn’t as detailed, Professor Bernstein has created a detailed, thoughtful, and comprehensive set of local rules designed to put students on notice of class requirements, as well as prepare them for the practice of law. . . .

Share this:

  • Print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Tweet
  • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Share on Telegram (Opens in new window) Telegram
Like Loading...

Is It Herein, Hereunder, Or Over Yonder?

10 Monday Feb 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Bad Legal Writing, Contract Law, Legal Analysis, Legal Writing, Legalese

≈ Comments Off on Is It Herein, Hereunder, Or Over Yonder?

Tags

Adams On Contracting Blog, Ambiguity, Bayerische Landesbank New York Branch v. Aladdin Capital Mgmt. LLC, Contract Law, Herein, Hereunder, Ken Adams, Legal Writing, Paul Hastings

“Herein” (And I Need A Label For This Kind Of Ambiguity), by Ken Adams, Adams on Contract Drafting Blog

http://tinyurl.com/lg9nuer

Ken Adams explains why to avoid “herein,” “hereunder,” and antecedent ambiguity when drafting contracts. -CCE

I’ve previously entertained you with court opinions addressing confusion over what part of a contract is being referred to in a contract provision. Who can forget the confusion over a “hereunder”? (See this post). Or over “except as provided below”? (See this post.)

Well, I have another treat for you. (Yes, I know, I’m too generous.)

The case is Bayerische Landesbank, New York Branch v. Aladdin Capital Mgmt. LLC, 692 F.3d 42 (2d Cir. 2012) (PDF here). (I learned about it from this Paul Hastings newsletter.)

Share this:

  • Print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Tweet
  • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Share on Telegram (Opens in new window) Telegram
Like Loading...

A Judge’s Biting Response to Bad Briefs.

08 Saturday Feb 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Bad Legal Writing, Brief Writing, Judges, Legal Analysis, Legal Writing

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

Bradshaw v. Unity Marine Corps, Briefs, Good Legal Writing, Judge Samuel B. Kent, Legal Analysis, Legal Writing, Tiffany Johnson

The Bench Strikes Back, by Tiffany Johnson, Good Legal Writing

http://goodlegalwriting.com/2013/01/10/the-bench-strikes-back/

A judge does not like the quality of writing and analysis in attorneys’ briefs and tells them so. It isn’t pretty. -CCE

Share this:

  • Print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Tweet
  • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Share on Telegram (Opens in new window) Telegram
Like Loading...

Legal Writing Tips From a Former Law Clerk.

01 Saturday Feb 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in ALWD, Bad Legal Writing, Brief Writing, Citations, Headnotes, IRAC, Legal Writing, The Bluebook

≈ Comments Off on Legal Writing Tips From a Former Law Clerk.

Tags

Bad Legal Writing, Brief Writing, Charleston School of Law, Citations, Grammar, Headnotes, Judicial Clerk, Kentucky Bench and Bar Association Magazine, Law Clerk, Legal Writing, Professor Brock Collins, Punctuation, Quotations

Writing Trial Memoranda: A Law Clerk’s Perspective, by Brock Collins, Kentucky Bench and Bar Association Magazine (January 2014) (with hat tip to Legal Writing Prof Blog)

http://kentuckybenchandbar.epubxp.com/t/30647

On page 28 of the Kentucky Bench and Bar Association Magazine, Brock Collins, a Professor at Charleston School of Law, describes what he learned about legal writing as a former judicial clerk. Professor Brock observes that “[t]he quality of an attorney’s credibility and reputation is based in large part on the quality and thoroughness of her legal writing.” In this excellent article, Professor Brock shares his legal writing tips. -CCE

Share this:

  • Print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Tweet
  • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Share on Telegram (Opens in new window) Telegram
Like Loading...
← Older posts
Newer posts →
Follow The Researching Paralegal on WordPress.com

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Search

Sign In/Register

  • Create account
  • Log in
  • Entries feed
  • Comments feed
  • WordPress.com

Categories

Archives

  • June 2024
  • March 2022
  • January 2022
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • January 2021
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • October 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • May 2019
  • March 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013

Recent Comments

lawyersonia's avatarlawyersonia on In Custodia Legis – Lega…
Eric Voigt's avatarEric Voigt on Top 20 Paralegal Blogs, Websit…
profvoigt's avatarprofvoigt on Research Guides in Focus – Mun…
Make Your PDF Docume… on Make Your PDF Document Edit-Pr…
madlaw291282999's avatarmadlaw291282999 on Using Hyperbole -Are You Riski…

Recent Comments

lawyersonia's avatarlawyersonia on In Custodia Legis – Lega…
Eric Voigt's avatarEric Voigt on Top 20 Paralegal Blogs, Websit…
profvoigt's avatarprofvoigt on Research Guides in Focus – Mun…
Make Your PDF Docume… on Make Your PDF Document Edit-Pr…
madlaw291282999's avatarmadlaw291282999 on Using Hyperbole -Are You Riski…
  • RSS - Posts
  • RSS - Comments

Blog at WordPress.com.

  • Subscribe Subscribed
    • The Researching Paralegal
    • Join 460 other subscribers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • The Researching Paralegal
    • Subscribe Subscribed
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Report this content
    • View site in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar
 

Loading Comments...
 

You must be logged in to post a comment.

    %d