• Home
  • About Me
  • Disclaimer

The Researching Paralegal

~ Articles and Research for Legal Professionals

The Researching Paralegal

Category Archives: Legal Writing

Plain Language Jury Instructions.

31 Saturday May 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Jury Instructions, Legal Writing, Legalese, Plain Language

≈ Comments Off on Plain Language Jury Instructions.

Tags

Jury instructions, Legal Writing, Plain Language

Plain Language and Jury Instructions, PlainLanguage.gov

http://www.plainlanguage.gov/examples/before_after/jury.cfm

Most jury instructions — long winded collections of complex sentences, arcane definitions and Talmudic distinctions — are all but impenetrable to lay people. So bad are some jury instructions that Court TV Anchor and former Prosecutor Nancy Grace reports having seen jurors turn to one another while listening to instructions and mouth the question, ‘What are they saying?’

Echoing such observations was a recent description in The National Law Journal of a judge who told jurors that a murder conviction required ‘malice aforethought.’ Unfortunately though, the jury interpreted this instruction to mean that the murder had to be committed with a mallet.

Many studies support anecdotal criticism of legalese jury instructions. For example:

• Forty percent of capital jurors wrongly believed that their jury instructions required them to accompany a conviction with a death sentence, according to a study by the Northeastern University’s Capital Jury Project.

• More than fifty percent of jurors defined ‘preponderance of the evidence’ as a ‘slow and careful pondering of the evidence,’ according to a study of Washington DC jurors. The same study found that more than 50 percent of jurors could not define ‘speculate,’ and about 25 percent did not know the meaning of ‘burden of proof,’ ‘impeach’ or ‘admissible evidence.’ . . .

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...

Mailtracker – A New iPhone App That Monitors Email Analytics.

28 Wednesday May 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Apple, Apps, Cell Phones, Emails, iPhones, Law Office Management, Legal Technology, Link Rot

≈ Comments Off on Mailtracker – A New iPhone App That Monitors Email Analytics.

Tags

App, Email Management, Gmail, iCloud, iPhones, Legal Productivity Blog, Mailtracker, Outlook, Yahoo

App of the Week: Mailtracker – See When and Where Your Email Was Read, by Lisa Pansini, Legal Productivity Blog

http://tinyurl.com/nwctft6

‘Hey, did you get that email that I sent you?’

With the Mailtracker app from Answerbook, you’ll never have to utter those words again.

It’s not a mail client in itself, but rather a tracking application for monitoring email analytics. It integrates with the native mail app on your iPhone, so it doesn’t impede your current email sending/receiving workflow. The service is compatible with emails sent via Gmail, Yahoo, Outlook.com and iCloud (with additional account support on the way!).

The Mailtracker app will deliver real-time analytics directly to your phone. You’ll be notified as soon as an email had been read. You can also see how many times the email was viewed, how much time was spent reading the email, the recipient’s location information, and device details. . . .

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...

Supreme Court Judges Really Use Dictionaries To Determine Legislative Intent?

26 Monday May 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Appellate Judges, Appellate Law, Judges, Legal Analysis, Legal Dictionaries, Legal Writing, Legislative History, References, United States Supreme Court

≈ Comments Off on Supreme Court Judges Really Use Dictionaries To Determine Legislative Intent?

Tags

Adam Liptak, Good Legal Writing, Legal Dictionaries, Legal Writing, Legislative History, New York Times, Statutes, Tiffany Johnson, U.S. Supreme Court

Look It Up! Or Not…, by Tiffany Johnson, Good Legal Writing

http://goodlegalwriting.com/2014/04/14/look-it-up-or-not/

I always encourage my students to look up any words that confuse them as they read opinions.  But this 2011 New York Times article  cites a few scholars who don’t think it’s the most judicious practice to undertake from the bench.  Check out this excerpt:

In May alone, the justices cited dictionaries in eight cases to determine what legislators had meant when they used words like ‘prevent,’ ‘delay’ and ‘report.’ Over the years, justices have looked up both perfectly ordinary words (‘now,’ ‘also,’ ‘any,’ ‘if’) and ones you might think they would know better than the next guy (‘attorney,’ ‘common law’).

All of this is, lexicographers say, sort of strange. . . .

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 The Heck Does “SS” In An Affidavit Mean Anyway?

25 Sunday May 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Affidavits, Legal Writing, Notary Jurat

≈ Comments Off on What The Heck Does “SS” In An Affidavit Mean Anyway?

Tags

Legal Writing, Michigan Bar Journal, Plain Language, SS, Thomas Selden Edgerton

After Seven Centuries, The True Meaning of SS, by Thomas Selden Edgerton, Plain Language, Michigan Bar Journal (February 2014)

http://www.michbar.org/journal/pdf/pdf4article2333.pdf

I always wondered what that “SS” meant. -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...

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...

Reviewer 7 App — Microsoft Documents On iPad.

19 Monday May 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Apps, iPad, iPhones, Legal Technology, Legal Writing, Microsoft Office, Word

≈ Comments Off on Reviewer 7 App — Microsoft Documents On iPad.

Tags

Apps, iPhone, Jeff Richardson, Microsoft Word, Reviewer 7

Review: Reviewer 7 — Review And Edit Microsoft Word Documents, by Jeff Richardson, iPhone J.D. Blog

http://tinyurl.com/lysjrdl

For many years, there was no one, best way to review and edit Microsoft Word documents on an iPad, but there were lots of apps that could be used for the task, each with their own strengths and limitations.  The landscape changed in March of 2014 when Microsoft introduced the Word for iPad app – a powerful app that can handle almost everything that you would want to do with a Word document on an iPad.  Ever since then, I have wondered about the future of the other apps that handle Word documents.  Some apps may be abandoned, but my hope is that others will find ways to distinguish themselves from Microsoft’s app.

That’s exactly what has happened with the new Reviewer 7 app.  This a new name for an updated version of an app that used to be called Reader 7, and I reviewed it this past February.  Reader 7 was created by German attorney Maren Reuter and her husband, who is a software designer, and I thought when I reviewed it that it was one of the very best apps for reading Word files on an iPad.  The app’s name was changed because while it is still an excellent viewer, you can now get the app for free and spend $1.99 for the in-app Review Tools upgrade and then the app will let you create redline edits in a Word document. . . .

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...

Mediation and Settlement Presentation and Strategies.

02 Friday May 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Brief Writing, Legal Argument, Legal Writing, Mediation

≈ Comments Off on Mediation and Settlement Presentation and Strategies.

Tags

Brief Writing, Cogent Legal Blog, Derek Ryan, Mediation, Mediators, Settlement

The Best Strategies to Present Your Case In Mediation, by Derek Ryan, Cogent Legal Blog

http://bit.ly/R9l7zU

Over the last 10 years, there’s been a significant shift in the way mediations are conducted. When I first started in the field, mediation briefs would come in via fax the night before the mediation. The mediator would begin the case with a joint conference where each side would make an opening statement, similar to trial, and after these openings the mediator would often have to spend the rest of the afternoon defusing the tension created by a joint conference.

There are two important aspects of developing presentations for mediation:  (1) Communicate with the mediator before the mediation; and (2) develop a presentation that will inform but not inflame the opposing party. Remember that mediation is voluntary, and the goal is not to make the other side walk out. The goal is to get the case settled in the best way for your client.

In this blog post, I’ll cover several strategies to best present your case at mediation, including dos and don’ts for using graphics and technology to enhance your results. . . .

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...

More on Link Rot.

27 Sunday Apr 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Appellate Law, Legal Technology, Link Rot, United States Supreme Court

≈ Comments Off on More on Link Rot.

Tags

All Tech Considered, Citations, Legal Writing, Link Rot, NPR, Perma CC, U.S. Supreme Court, URL

Stopping Link Rot: Aiming to End A Virtual Epidemic, by NPR Staff, All Tech Considered, NPR

http://n.pr/QTrCGp

I have mentioned perma.cc and the problem of link rot before. It is a good solution but not quite perfected. When I have used it here on this blog, it is not always reliable, which is disappointing for something that shows such promise. Hopefully all the kinks will be worked out soon. -CCE

Just about anyone who’s gone online has encountered the message: ‘Error 404’ or page ‘Not Found.’ It’s what you see when a link is broken or dead — when the resource is no longer available.

It happens all across the Internet, on blogs, news websites, even links cited in decisions by the Supreme Court. It’s called link rot, and it spreads over time as more pages die.

These are natural deaths; links die when the server where the page first lived has closed for business, or a filter is blocking access. It’s annoying on sites like Buzzfeed and Gawker, but it’s worse when links go rotten on judicial decisions or works of scholarship.

Jonathan Zittrain, professor of law and computer science at Harvard University, says that’s a serious problem.

‘It’s extraordinarily bad for the long-term maintenance of the information we need, say, to understand the law,’ says Zittrain, who helped create Perma.cc, a service to help judges, authors and scholars preserve links indefinitely. . . .

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...

Why Isn’t The Judge Listening?

16 Wednesday Apr 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Closing Argument, Experts, Jury Persuasion, Legal Analysis, Legal Argument, Opening Argument, Trial Tips and Techniques

≈ Comments Off on Why Isn’t The Judge Listening?

Tags

Dr. Ken Broda-Bahm, Expert Witness, Judge, Juries, Listening, Persuasive Litigator Blog, Trial Tips & Techniques

Experts: Keep It Comparative, by Dr. Ken Broda-Bahm, Persuasive Litigator Blog

http://tinyurl.com/n3hovpy

The expert has prepared thoroughly for her testimony before the judge. She knows each opinion and every foundation. The outline that counsel developed is all but memorized. But then, as she is about an hour into describing the detailed methods and conclusions, the judge’s eyes are drifting down to the table and the nods of understanding have stopped: He isn’t getting it. In itself, there is nothing in the testimony that is impossible to understand – on the contrary, it is organized and clear. But the judge seems to have disengaged. Instead of tracking with the testimony at each step, he is just hearing detail after detail and letting it wash over him.  And if there were a jury in the room, the problem would be even worse.

What went wrong?  . . . .

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...

Clear Legal Writing.

13 Sunday Apr 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Legal Writing

≈ Comments Off on Clear Legal Writing.

Tags

Ellis & Winters LLP, Legal Writing, Stephen D. Feldman, Strunk & White

Clear Writing Through Purposeful Sentences, by Stephen D. Feldman, Ellis & Winters, LLP

http://www.elliswinters.com/updates/feldman_clear_writing_14

Clear writing makes winning more likely.  Why?

Consider our courts’ workloads.  A federal district court judge, on average, annually handles over five hundred filings.[1]

The federal appellate courts annually receive more than 50,000 appeals.[2]  State courts experience the same pressures.[3]

These docket pressures, however, do not diminish the role of briefs.  If anything, it is enhanced.  Judges—even when they hear oral arguments—regularly make their rulings based on the briefs.[4]  A winning brief, then, must convey to the reader the key points for victory—and do so in one reading. . . .

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...

Judges Prefer “Plain Language.” If This Is True, Then Why Don’t We Use It?

01 Tuesday Apr 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Appellate Judges, Citations, Federal Judges, Footnotes, Judges, Legal Analysis, Legal Argument, Legal Writing, Legalese, Texas Supreme Court

≈ Comments Off on Judges Prefer “Plain Language.” If This Is True, Then Why Don’t We Use It?

Tags

Bryan Garner, Clarence Darrow, Joseph Kimble, Legal Writing, Michigan Bar Journal, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Plain English Submittee, Plain Language, Texas Plain Language Committee

 Judges on Effective Writing: The Importance of Plain Language, by Bryan Garner, Michigan Bar Journal Plain Language Committee

http://tinyurl.com/qf8fhsf

 (‘‘Plain Language’’ is a regular feature of the Michigan Bar Journal, edited by Joseph Kimble for the Plain English Subcommittee of the Publications and Website Advisory Committee. We seek to improve the clarity of legal writing and the public opinion of lawyers by eliminating legalese. Want to contribute a plain-English article? Contact Prof. Kimble at Thomas Cooley Law School, P.O. Box 13038, Lansing, MI 48901. For information about the Plain English Committee, see our website—http://www.michbar.org/generalinfo/plainenglish/home.cfm.)

Lawyers are notoriously poor at gauging what judges prefer in legal writing. Too many of us believe, for example, that judges expect us to use legalese. In 1991, when the Texas Plain-Language Committee surveyed all the state district and appellate judges in Texas, we found that more than 80 percent prefer plain language (Plaintiff complains of Defendant and says) over legalese (Now comes the Plaintiff, by and through his attorneys of record, Darrow and Holmes, and for his Original Petition in this cause would respectfully show unto the Court the following). Indeed, several judges responded to the survey with a plea that we stamp out legalese once and for all. . . .

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 Recommendation for Legal Writing Experts.

01 Tuesday Apr 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in ALWD, Brief Writing, Citations, Footnotes, Legal Analysis, Legal Argument, Legal Writing, Parentheses, Spell Checking, The Bluebook

≈ Comments Off on A Recommendation for Legal Writing Experts.

Tags

Advanced Legal Writing & Editing, Bryan Garner, Legal Writing, Making Your Case, Raymond Ward, the (new) legal writer, The ALWD Citation Manual, The Bluebook, The Redbook

The Redbook (3d ed.), by Raymond Ward, the (new) legal writer blog

http://tinyurl.com/nlqx3zy

If Raymond Ward says it, you can take it to the bank. I have followed his legal writing blog for years. Look for sound advice on superb legal writing. -CCE

Today I attended a triple-feature CLE by Bryan Garner: Advanced Legal Writing & Editing, The Redbook, and Making Your Case. To see whether Bryan’s spring tour will visit your city, click here to see the schedule. What I want to talk about this evening is what I learned in the Redbook portion of the seminar.

For years, I have had the first edition of the Redbook on my office bookshelf. For those unfamiliar with this book, it’s a style manual for legal writers. If you have a question about the right word, right punctuation, or right way to do something in legal writing, this book endeavors to answer your question. I’ve found it a useful reference for answering questions that arisen when writing a brief or editing another’s brief.

First, this preface: I am not one who immediately buys the next edition of whatever if the current edition remains serviceable. I use so-called outdated versions of the Bluebook and ALWD Citation Manual, because they still answer any question I have ever had about how to cite something. So since the first edition of the Redbook has served me well, I did not rush out to buy the second or third editions.

Having said that, here is my point: if you don’t have the third edition, get it. . . .

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...

Add This Writing Tool To Your Arsenal.

30 Sunday Mar 2014

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

≈ Comments Off on Add This Writing Tool To Your Arsenal.

Tags

Elizabeth Bezant, Legal Writing, Readability, The Fog Index, The Gunning Fog Index, Writing to Inspire

The Gunning Fog Index, by Elizabeth Bezant, Writing to Inspire Blog

http://www.writing-information-and-tips.com/fog-index.html

If you want to increase the readability of everything you write, consider using the Gunning Fog Index – more commonly known as the Fog Index. It is the copywriter’s favorite statistics measurement. The idea behind the Fog Index is to show you the education level your reader must hypothetically have to understand what the document says.

I am not asking you to “dumb it down.”  But, remember that the goal in any legal writing project is to be understood, regardless of the complexity of the subject. If you are struggle with writing shorter sentence and paragraphs or simply making your writing more readable, this tool will help.

If you teach legal writing or any kind of writing course, encourage your students to use the Fog Index. It can be used by those who seek to improve their writing skills to a more sophisticated level. It can help anyone clarify their writing and write more concisely. But, most importantly, it gives you a way to determine whether what makes sense to you will make sense to anyone else.

Even though lawyers and judges have a high degree of education, when writing about complex issues, it helps to keep your document as simple and clear as possible.  The goal is to keep your Fog Index from ten to fifteen. Major publications, such as the New York Times and Times Magazine, have a Fog Index of eleven to twelve. If your document is meant for a wide audience, go for a Fog Index of less than twelve. If you are writing a document that you want to be universally understood, your target is a Fog Index of less than eight. For example, the Bible’s Fog Index is six.

See also http://gunning-fog-index.com/.

For more readability tests, see http://juicystudio.com/services/readability.php. -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...

Good Legal Writing – Why You Don’t Need Names In Paretheseses.

29 Saturday Mar 2014

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

≈ Comments Off on Good Legal Writing – Why You Don’t Need Names In Paretheseses.

Tags

Briefly Writing Blog, Legal Writing, Mike Skotnicki, Parentheses

Judges Catch On Quick. You Don’t Need Names in Parentheses, by Mike Skotnicki,Briefly Writing Blog

http://tinyurl.com/l5xkagk

[O]ne of the mistakes I see from good lawyers is that they overuse the technique of placing an abbreviation of a case name, party name, or other references to things in quotes inside parentheses. . . . .

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...

Legalese And Other Words You Should Always Cut.

29 Saturday Mar 2014

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

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

ABA Journal, Ambrose Bierce, Bryan A. Garner, editor of the New York Evening Post, Faults, Index Expurgatorius, James Gordon Bennett Jr., Law News Now, Legal Writing, Legalese, Little Blacklist of Literary, New York Evening Post, William Cullen Bryant

Ax These Terms From Your Legal Writing, by Bryan A. Garner, Law News Now, ABA Journal

http://tinyurl.com/kaoqz2o

William Cullen Bryant, editor of the New York Evening Post from 1829 until 1878, created an ‘Index Expurgatorius’ for his newspaper. Certain words simply weren’t allowed in its pages.

Likewise, James Gordon Bennett Jr., owner of the New York Herald from 1867 to 1918, had his ‘Don’t List.’ For example, he wouldn’t allow his journalists to write executive session when they meant secret session.

Keeping a banned-word list is hardly unique to newspapers. The novelist Ambrose Bierce kept a ‘Little Blacklist of Literary Faults,’ published nearly a century ago. He despised committed suicide, preferring instead killed himself (or herself). He likewise disapproved of decease for die, executed for hanged (or put to death), expectorate for spit, inaugurate for begin, prior to for before and so on. He wasn’t fond of genteelisms. No real stylists are.

Legal drafters could benefit from a similar verbal blacklist—a simple list of words that do nothing but blemish the documents that contain them. Learn them and ax them. . . .

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...

Proofreading Checklist – Don’t Miss This One!

27 Thursday Mar 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Citations, Legal Writing, Proofreading

≈ Comments Off on Proofreading Checklist – Don’t Miss This One!

Tags

Bad Language Brief, Cheat Sheets, Clare Dodd, Proofreading, Spell Checker

Cheat Sheet: We’re Giving Away Our Proofreading Checklist, by Clare Dodd, Bad Language Brief

http://www.badlanguage.net/proofreading-checklist

Proofreading. Not the most exciting job in the world, but an absolutely necessary one.

We’ve covered before what happens when you miss a typo (that’s right, the errorists win). Unfortunately, that doesn’t make it any easier to turn out entirely perfect copy. And if you work for a marketing agency, delivering clumsy copy to a client reflects badly on both you and your copywriters.

But you’re in luck: we at Articulate Marketing are sharing our Proofreading checklist with you to make life a little easier. . . . .

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...

New Theory of Hearsay, Take 3!

22 Saturday Mar 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Criminal Law, Evidence, Federal Rules of Evidence, Hearsay, Legal Writing, Motion to Suppress, Motions, Rule 602, Rule 803 Exception

≈ Comments Off on New Theory of Hearsay, Take 3!

Tags

Anonymous Hearsay Declarant, Colin Miller, EvidenceProf Blog, Federal Rules of Evidence, Hearsay, Motion to Suppress, Rule 602, Rule 803, United States v. Daniels

A New Theory of Hearsay, Take 3: Rule 602 & Anonymous Hearsay Declarants, by Editor Colin Miller, Evidence ProfBlogger, EvidenceProf Blog

http://tinyurl.com/ka5aw6p

Federal Rule of Evidence 803(1) provides an exception to the rule against hearsay for

A statement describing or explaining an event or condition, made while or immediately after the declarant perceived it.

As a Rule 803 exception, this present sense impression exception applies “regardless of whether the declarant is available as a witness….” Indeed, the exception can apply even if the declarant has not been identified. But, like with a witness’s testimony at trial, a statement offered under a hearsay exception is only admissible if the declarant had personal knowledge under Federal Rule of Evidence 602. So, where does that leave us?

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...

Key Elements of Great Legal Writing.

21 Friday Mar 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Appellate Judges, Brief Writing, Federal Judges, Judges, Legal Analysis, Legal Argument, Legal Writing

≈ Comments Off on Key Elements of Great Legal Writing.

Tags

Grammar, Judges, Legal Opinions, Legal Writing, Punctuation, Raymond Ward, Ross Guberman, Ross Guberman Blog

The Seven Writing Strategies of Highly Effective Trial Judges, by Ross Guberman Blog (with hat tip to Raymond Ward, the (new) legal writer blog!)

http://tinyurl.com/ov446wn

This post hits on all of the key elements of great, not just good, legal writing. It is rarely explained better than this. Pay attention . . . . -CCE

Asked to name the world’s best opinion writers, traditionalists might rattle off Lord Denning, Learned Hand, or Oliver Wendell Holmes. Modernists often prefer Antonin Scalia or Richard Posner. And the trendy might cite new kids on the block like Lord Sumption or Elena Kagan.

Those august names all deserve heaps of praise. But the fame that these judges enjoy raises questions of its own: Can you write a “great” opinion if you’re a judge who’s not a household name, or even especially influential? And can you write a “great” opinion in a case that’s not a high-profile constitutional crisis, but just another run-of-the-mill dispute in an overflowing docket?

I say “yes” on both counts. No matter how routine a case, and no matter how little time you have, you can write a great opinion. It may not be “great” for the ages, but it can offer readers a clear, accessible, and easy-to-follow analysis of your reasoning, with even a bit of flair or personality for good measure. . . . 

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...

Law Student Invents App To Write Case Briefs.

16 Sunday Mar 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Apps, Case Briefs, Headnotes, iPad, IRAC, Legal Analysis, Legal Technology, Legal Writing

≈ Comments Off on Law Student Invents App To Write Case Briefs.

Tags

Case Analysis, Case Briefs, David Lutz, Legal Writing, Robert Ambrogi, Robert Ambrogi’s LawSites, The University of Michigan Law School

‘BriefCase’ App Automates Creation of Case Briefs, by Robert Ambrogi, Robert Ambrogi’s LawSites Blog

http://perma.cc/YXN4-HN3W

 

It will be interesting to see legal writing professors’ take on this. Please note that this App only works on iPads. -CCE

A third-year student at The University of Michigan Law School has created an iPad app, BriefCase, that automates the creation of case briefs.

The student, David Lutz, found it cumbersome to have to print out PDFs of cases, annotate them, and then type all the annotated information into a brief. The app lets you do all that on an iPad. (There are no iPhone or Android versions.) . . . .

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...

Using Logical Groupings In Legal Writing.

16 Sunday Mar 2014

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

≈ Comments Off on Using Logical Groupings In Legal Writing.

Tags

Kenneth F. Oettle, Legal Writing, New Jersey Law Journal

In Legal Writing, Dross Disappears and Points Emerge as Groupings Improve, by Kenneth F. Oettle, New Jersey Law Journal

http://perma.cc/PRC7-2629

Kenneth Oettle is on my list of top legal writers. His legal writing book, “Making Your Point: A Practical Guide to Persuasive Legal Writing” is well worth the price. -CCE

Legal writing is all about groupings — sets and subsets, and categories. These are the building blocks of logic. Accurate sets and subsets (accurate categories) increase the efficiency with which information is delivered, and the process of shaping sets and subsets forces a writer to confirm that the message is on point. Regrettably, the kind of precise grouping that typically takes place late in the editing process (e.g., rearranging items in sentences and short paragraphs) is sometimes skipped in the rush to get product out the door. . . .

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