• Home
  • About Me
  • Disclaimer

The Researching Paralegal

~ Articles and Research for Legal Professionals

The Researching Paralegal

Category Archives: Legal Writing

The Basics of Legal Writing for Legal Professionals.

04 Sunday Jun 2017

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Editing, Grammar, Legal Argument, Legal Writing, Plain Language, Readability

≈ Comments Off on The Basics of Legal Writing for Legal Professionals.

Tags

Gerald Lebovits, Legal Writing, SSRN, The Legal Writer

The Writing Process for New Lawyers: Getting it Written and Right, by Gerald Lebovits, The Legal Writer, 89 N.Y. St. B.J. 80 (May 2017) (with hat tip to William P. Statsky)

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2967050

Although this article is about the basics of legal writing, even seasoned legal writers will find it useful and instructive. Regardless of how well we think we write, we can always improve.

This article puts an emphasis on focusing on the purpose of your document, organizing your thoughts, considering your reader, researching, and editing. In short, all the basics you need to write well. -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...

Use Plain English Rather Than Medical Jargon.

12 Wednesday Apr 2017

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Legal Writing, Persuasive Writing, Plain Language, Trial Tips and Techniques

≈ Comments Off on Use Plain English Rather Than Medical Jargon.

Tags

David Daly, Dr. Oscar Linares, Gertrude Daly, Michigan Bar Journal, Plain English

Plain English Helps Explain Medical Issues Clearly, A Case Study, by Dr. Oscar Linares, David Daly, and Gertrude Daly, 36 Mich. B J. (Jan. 2017)

http://www.michbar.org/file/barjournal/article/documents/pdf4article3039.pdf

Professionals, like doctors, often speak using medical jargon. Other doctors understand it, but not necessarily everyone else. This is true for anyone who uses technical language specific to their work. But in a legal matter, communication is critical. A good reason to use plain English, isn’t it? -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...

Excellent Example of Appellate Court’s Use of Persuasive Legal Writing Tools.

04 Tuesday Apr 2017

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Appellate Law, Civil Rights, Legal Analysis, Legal Writing, Persuasive Writing, Second Amendment

≈ Comments Off on Excellent Example of Appellate Court’s Use of Persuasive Legal Writing Tools.

Tags

Lady (Legal) Writer Blog, Legal Analysis, Legal Writing, Megan E. Boyd, Second Amendment

Contrasting Introductions in Kolbe v. Hogan, by Megan E. Boyd, Lady (Legal) Writer Blog

http://ladylegalwriter.blogspot.com/2017/03/contrasting-introductions-in-kolbe-v.html

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals recently held that Maryland’s Firearm Safety Act (FSA), which bans AR-15s, other military-style rifles, and certain large-capacity magazines, is constitutional and does not violate the Second or Fourteenth Amendments.

This decision is controversial for a number of reasons (aren’t all cases involving guns?), but the introductions in the majority and dissenting opinions are particularly interesting. You’d expect an opinion about the constitutionality of a firearm-related statute to start with an exposition of Second Amendment law or a discussion of the specific language of the statute itself.

Not this majority opinion. It starts with a literal bang . . . .

Continue 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...

Punctuation – The Devil Indeed Is In the Details.

06 Monday Mar 2017

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

≈ Comments Off on Punctuation – The Devil Indeed Is In the Details.

Tags

Legal Writing, Oregon State Bar Bulletin, Punctuation, Suzanne E. Rowe©2007

Legal Writing is Precise Writing, by Suzanne E. Rowe©2007, Oregon State Bar Bulletin — NOVEMBER 2007

https://www.osbar.org/publications/bulletin/07nov/legalwriter.html

A colleague appeared in my office with a pressing question about hyphens. He was writing an article about people who own small businesses. But he was concerned that a punctuation mistake might make the article about small people, instead of small businesses. That concern (and perhaps a touch of procrastination) propelled him to my office. Was he writing about small business owners or small-business owners?

Legal writing is precise writing. Sometimes the missing hyphen, misplaced word or extra comma can change the meaning of a sentence. In quotations, lack of precision can hurt your reputation (or just make you look sloppy). The devil’s in the details.

Continue 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...

Tips on Writing Persuasive Propositions.

02 Thursday Mar 2017

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Brief Writing, Legal Writing, Persuasive Writing, Propositions and Headings

≈ Comments Off on Tips on Writing Persuasive Propositions.

Tags

©Now Counsel Network, Briefs, Legal Writing, Lisa Solomon, Persuasive Legal Writing, Propositions, William P. Statsky

How to Write Effective Argument Headings, by Lisa Solomon, NOW Counsel Network (with hat tip to William P. Statsky!)

http://bit.ly/2ljxJbg

Ms. Solomon calls them argument or point headings. I call them propositions. Regardless, their importance as a persuasive writing tool in any brief should never been overlooked.

A proposition or heading is a succinct statement that states the question or issue to be discussed and answered in your brief. If done correctly, the reader – your judge – should follow the logical flow of your brief’s argument by simply reading the propositions and sub-propositions.  

A proposition that is a positive statement is more persuasive than a question.  Even better, your proposition should state positively what the court ought to do and why. X should happen because of Y or, because of Y, X should happen.  Regardless of the format you use, a proposition that says why the court should rule as you want is always more persuasive. -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...

Why We Need Clear Legal Writing in Contracts.

20 Monday Feb 2017

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Bad Legal Writing, Contract Law, Legal Writing, Plain Language

≈ Comments Off on Why We Need Clear Legal Writing in Contracts.

Tags

Aird & Berlis, Contracts, Legal Writing, Plain English, Sherry Altshuler

Sesquipedalianism and an Expatiation Upon Its Antithetical Impact on Interpersonal Communications: Big Words and Why They’re Bad, by Sherry Altshuler, Aird & Berlis, LLP (with hat tip to Louis J. Sirico, Jr., Legal Skills Prof Blog)

http://www.airdberlis.com/Templates/Blog/Entry.aspx?Page=71&ID=11120

This post on using plain English does what good legal writing should. Rather than telling you that big or complicated words are a sure way to lose your reader, it shows you with a wonderful example.  I love “show, don’t tell.” It also provides an excellent list of good legal writing tips. This one is worth a bookmark. -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 Myths

11 Saturday Feb 2017

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Brief Writing, Citations, Editing, Legal Argument, Legal Writing, Persuasive Writing, Plain Language

≈ Comments Off on Legal Writing Myths

Tags

Judge Gerald Lebovits, Legal Writing, Michigan Bar Journal, Plain English Subcomittee

Legal-Writing Myths, by the Hon. Gerald Lebovits, Plain English Subcommittee Column, 50 Mich. B.J. (February 2017)©2017

https://researchingparalegal.wordpress.com/?p=4848&preview=true

 

Are longer briefs more persuasive? Is it a legal writing faux pas to start a sentence with “and”? Do judges care if you follow Bluebook citation format? Judge Lebovits has some thoughts on these and other legal writing myths to share, some of which may surprise you. -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...

New and Updated GPO Style Manual.

18 Wednesday Jan 2017

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Abbreviations, Editing, Grammar, Initialisms, Legal Writing, Numbers, Punctuation, Style Manuals

≈ Comments Off on New and Updated GPO Style Manual.

Tags

Barco 3.0: Law Library Reference, Grammar, Legal Writing, Punctuation, Style Manual

GPO Style Manual: new edition, Barco 3.0: Law Library Reference

http://bit.ly/2is1ipN

The Government Publishing Office has published a thorough and updated Style Manual, which includes rules for punctuation, grammar, abbreviations, and computer terms, among other things. You will find “New Features and Enhancements” at https://www.govinfo.gov/features/release-notes/govinfo-beta-launch.

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 Long Is Too Long For An Appellate Brief?

10 Tuesday Jan 2017

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

≈ Comments Off on How Long Is Too Long For An Appellate Brief?

Tags

Appellate Briefs, Debra Cassen Weiss, Judge Richard Posner, Legal Writing

Posner criticizes ‘verbosity’ in appeals briefs in decision upholding closed voir dire, by Debra Cassens Weiss, Appellate Practice, ABA Journal.com (with hat tip to William P. Statsky)

http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/posner_criticizes_verbosity_in_appeals_briefs_in_decision_upholding_verdict

Judge Richard Posner is a well-known 7th Circuit jurist, legal writing scholar, and prolific author. Knowing this, it is puzzling why the appellate briefs for both sides were over 200 pages each. Yes, Judge Posner had something to say about it. -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...

Make Legal Writing Resolutions for 2017.

03 Tuesday Jan 2017

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Editing, Grammar, Legal Writing, Persuasive Writing, Readability

≈ Comments Off on Make Legal Writing Resolutions for 2017.

Tags

©Now Counsel Network, Legal Writing, Lisa Solomon

3 Easy-to-Keep Legal-Writing Resolutions for 2017, by Lisa Solomon, Now Counsel Network Blog©

http://bit.ly/2hK5QTb

Made your New Year’s resolution yet? Going for the usual? This year I will lose weight, go to the gym, and swear off fried food and chocolate? No way. Giving up chocolate would take a serious toll on my mental health.

So may I recommend honing your legal writing skills as alternative? I promise there’s no gym fees, and you can eat all the chocolate you want. -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” On Drafting Dispute Resolution Agreements.

25 Sunday Dec 2016

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Contract Law, Dispute Resolution, Legal Writing, Settlement

≈ Comments Off on “How To” On Drafting Dispute Resolution Agreements.

Tags

Dispute Resolution, John M. Newman, Legal Skills Prof Blog, Legal Writing, Louis J. Sirico Jr., Settlement Agreements, SSRN

Drafting for Dispute Resolution, by John M. Newman, SSRN (with hat tip to Louis J. Sirico, Jr., Director of Legal Writing, Villanova Univ. School of Law, Legal Skills Prof Blog)

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2867692

Not all cases end in litigation and go to trial. At times, the best service counsel can give to clients is an out-of-court resolution. Careful drafting of an agreement between the parties includes numerous considerations to protect your client and to assure acceptance by everyone involved. Definitely worth a bookmark. -CCE

This is a brief guide to drafting for dispute resolution. Topics covered include mandatory-arbitration provisions, class waivers, choice of law, choice of venue, exculpatory and liquidated-damages clauses, fee and cost allocations, and more. . . .

This guide seeks to concisely identify and explore, from a transactional perspective, the relevant questions, considerations, and law relating to these powerful tools. It also provides illustrative examples of well-drafted provisions, often drawn from real-world legal instruments. . . .

Continue 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...

Plain English Legal Writing – Proof Positive That It Works.

12 Monday Dec 2016

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

≈ Comments Off on Plain English Legal Writing – Proof Positive That It Works.

Tags

Joseph Kimble, Legalese, Michigan Bar Journal, Plain English Column

The Proof is in the Reading, Plain Language Works Best, by Joseph Kimble, 52 Mich. B J. (Oct. 2016)

http://www.michbar.org/file/barjournal/article/documents/pdf4article2972.pdf

Joseph Kimble has long been recognized as one of the top legal writing scholars. In this Plain English column of the Michigan Bar Journal (every Bar Journal should have one!), Professor Kimble offers evidence once again that readers, including judges, prefer plain language and why. -CCE

To help round out this plain-English theme issue of the Bar Journal, I offer the evidence of four studies. These four are among 50 that I collect and summarize in my book Writing for Dollars, Writing to Please: The Case for Plain Language in Business, Government, and Law. Of the 50 studies, 18 involved different kinds of legal documents—lawsuit papers, judicial opinions, statutes, regulations, jury instructions, court forms and notices, and contracts. And they included readers of all sorts—judges, lawyers, administrators, and the general  public. The evidence is overwhelming: readers strongly prefer plain language to legalese, understand it better and faster, are more likely to comply with it, and are more likely to read it to begin with. —JK

Continue 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...

Legal Writing – Why Shorter is Better.

08 Thursday Dec 2016

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

≈ Comments Off on Legal Writing – Why Shorter is Better.

Tags

Editing, Good Legal Writing Blog, Legal Writing, Rule of Short, Tiffany Johnson

Make it shorter … and shorter …, by Tiffany Johnson, Good Legal Writing Blog

https://goodlegalwriting.com/2011/02/11/make-it-shorter-and-shorter/

Regardless of whether, in your own opinion, you are a good writer, we can always improve. Here is an opportunity to polish your skills, take note of some bad habits, and hone your editing technique. -CCE

Here’s a good exercise to promote plain writing and dense writing.  The object is to force you to purge your writing of any words that don’t work their butts off on your behalf.  Take the following sentence and reduce it to as few words as humanly possible, without changing the meaning of the sentence.  Shortest re-write wins a prize (respect)!

Continue 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...

Contract Interpretation and Ambiguity.

04 Sunday Dec 2016

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Appellate Writing, Contract Law, Legal Writing

≈ Comments Off on Contract Interpretation and Ambiguity.

Tags

Contracts, ContractsProf Blog, Legal Writing, Stacey Lantagne

Judicial Disagreement Over Contract Ambiguity: When Are Things OBVIOUS? By Stacey Lantagne, ContractsProf Blog

http://bit.ly/2f3Dtj5

We’ve been talking about contract interpretation in my Contracts class lately and I’m always struck by how many cases involve a lower court ruling of ambiguity and then an appellate court reversal of that ruling, because it always strikes me as such a funny thing. The very definition of ambiguity would seem to be ‘multiple people disagreeing on the meaning of the word,’ but the appellate court decisions in those cases necessarily have to dismiss the reasonableness of the lower court’s understanding of the meaning in order to assert that the meaning is SO OBVIOUS.

Continue 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...

Honey Pot on Appellate Brief Writing.

19 Saturday Nov 2016

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

≈ Comments Off on Honey Pot on Appellate Brief Writing.

Tags

Appellate Brief Writing, Associate’s Mind Blog, Justice Maria Rivera, Keith Lee, Storytelling

The Ten Commandments of Brief Writing, by Keith Lee, Associate’s Mind Blog

http://associatesmind.com/2016/11/17/ten-commandments-brief-writing/

Do not miss this one! Keith Lee gives some excellent advice, and provides a honey pot link to Justice Maria Rivera’s “The Ten Commandments of Brief Writing.” Appellate judges pull no punches when it comes to what works and what doesn’t in appellate briefs. -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...

The Plain Language Argument Against Using Latin Legal Terms of Art.

30 Sunday Oct 2016

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Bad Legal Writing, Legal Writing, Legalese, Plain Language, Terms of art

≈ Comments Off on The Plain Language Argument Against Using Latin Legal Terms of Art.

Tags

Chadwick C. Busk, Latin, Legal Terms of Art, Legal Writing, Michael Braem, Michigan Bar Journal, Plain Language

Curiouser and Curiouser Excuses for Legal Jargon, by Chadwick C. Busk & Michael Braem, 95 Plain Language, Mich. B.J. 30 (2016)

Click to access pdf4article2967.pdf

Earlier today, I posted about the use of Latin for legal terms of art, although legal writing scholars usually advise against using them. This article addresses that very subject. -CCE

I don’t know the meaning of half those long words, and I don’t believe you  do either.” —Eaglet, Alice in Wonderland (1865), Chapter III

“Some lawyers and academicians attempt to justify legal jargon and “traditional” legal writing—legal writing that’s ‘wordy, unclear, pompous, dull1’  and even “wretched.’2 But legal jargon in contracts burdens all those who must deal with it: the parties to the agreement who try to understand it, lawyers who mistakenly think they must use it, and judges who have to interpret it. Legal jargon often creates ambiguity, and ambiguity invites litigation. Many legalisms have been fodder for courts to puzzle over, including herein, therein, hereby, and thereof; shall; and/or; and best efforts.

However, some academicians, most recently Professor Lori Johnson of the UNLV William S. Boyd School of Law, have modernized old excuses for legal jargon and concocted new ones. Can these arguments withstand a reasoned analysis, or are they merely fanciful declarations from Wonderland?

Continue 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...

Latin Legal Terms of Art.

30 Sunday Oct 2016

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Legal Dictionaries, Terms of art

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

Latin legal terms of art, Legal Writing

While most legal writing scholars favor plain language and elimination of legalese and Latin words and phrases, there are some well-recognized – and often used – Latin legal terms of art. Some examples include stare decisis, per curiam, certiorari, res ipsa loquitur, ad hoc, mens rea, et alia, in rem, in personam, inter vivos, nolo contendere , and prima facie.

If you intend to take one of the national paralegal exams for certification or registration or if you are a paralegal student, there are Latin terms of art you should know. -CCE

Duhaime’s Latin Dictionary 
http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/Category/LatinLawTermsDictionary.aspx

Latin Phrases and Expressions, BusinessBall.com http://www.businessballs.com/latin-terms-phrases.htm

Legal Terminology Definitions http://www.pegc.us/_LAW_/latin_legal_defs.pdf

Latin Legal Phrases   http://latin.topword.net/?Legal

CN-Fact Sheet 9, Carter Newell Lawyers©2015 http://bit.ly/2eoQrqg

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...

Another “How To” Really, Really Write Bad Briefs.

24 Monday Oct 2016

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

≈ Comments Off on Another “How To” Really, Really Write Bad Briefs.

Tags

Brief Writing, Legal Writing, Michigan Bar Journal, Plain English Committee

How to Ruin Your Briefs – Or The Screwtape Lawyers, by Austin J. Hakes, 50 Mich. B. J. (Aug. 2016)

http://www.michbar.org/file/barjournal/article/documents/pdf4article2928.pdf

The author has a well-known new client with an unusual request – write the worst briefs possible. The author offers eight rules to as guidelines to fulfill his client’s wish. This will be interesting! And, because it comes from the Michigan Bar Journal’s Plain English Committee, you know it’s going to be good. -CCE

That’s right— he wants us to write terrible briefs. This surprised me too at first, but then he explained his new litigation strategy: suspecting that it might be more effective to ruin judicial minds than to manipulate them in his favor, he wants to use terrible writing to drive appellate judges totally insane. Writing a bad brief is easy enough, but writing a truly disastrous one—one capable of inducing madness—is a task requiring deliberate effort and careful study. Our greatest challenge may be a lack of helpful reference materials, for although there are several good books on the art of writing well, the craft of writing badly has been suppressed and maligned for far too long. In the hope of invigorating the persecuted art of infuriating prose, I offer this letter. It’s a meager beginning, but if you follow these eight rules to the best of your ability, your writing should be sufficiently misguided and maddening to serve our client well.

Continue 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...

How Long Is Too Long? Lawyers and Judges Disagree.

20 Thursday Oct 2016

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

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

Briefs, James B. Levy, Legal Skills Prof Blog, Legal Writing, Page Number Limit

Judges Want Briefs to Be Shorter but Lawyers Push Back, by James B. Levy, Legal Skills Prof Blog

http://bit.ly/2dQjl5R

Often courts have local rules limiting the length of a brief. Have you ever wondered why? In everything you’ve ever heard or read about good legal writing, can you imagine a judge saying this?

“Yes, please, write a long, detailed brief. Use as many obscure legal authorities as possible. I  have loads of time and plenty of staff to look up each one. Repeat your argument several times to make sure I know how important it is. Above all, make it as hard to read as possible.

I want lengthy quotations. Ideally, make them at least a page long, if not longer. One sentence paragraphs are the best! And by all means, pile on the legalese. Verbosity and obscure language is always appreciated.”

Of course not. They simply do not have the luxury of time to read huge briefs, especially if they are poorly written. I have said before that, while working for an Oklahoma Supreme Court Justice, I literally saw a bad brief go flying across the room. The Judge, in disgust, tossed it aside, and picked up the other side’s brief. Ouch! -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...

Dump This Common Legal Writing Phrase!

09 Sunday Oct 2016

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

≈ Comments Off on Dump This Common Legal Writing Phrase!

Tags

Law Skills Prof Blog, Legal Analysis, Legal Writing, Louis J. Sirico Jr.

Avoid Beginning Sentences with “The court held that . . . .” by Louis J. Sirico, Jr., Law Skills Prof Blog (with hat tip to William P. Statsky)

http://bit.ly/2d5b89q

Busted! I use this phrase all the time. Here’s a way to take your legal writing to another level. -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...

What’s Wrong With Using “And/Or”?

06 Thursday Oct 2016

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Grammar, Legal Writing, Persuasive Writing

≈ Comments Off on What’s Wrong With Using “And/Or”?

Tags

And/Or, Legal Writing, Slaw Canada’s online legal writing magazine, Ted Tjaden

Do Not Use “and/or” in Legal Writing, by Ted Tjaden, Slaw Canada’s online legal writing magazine

http://www.slaw.ca/2011/07/27/grammar-legal-writing/

If there was any question in my mind about whether using “and/or” is good legal writing, it is resolved. After reading Mr. Tjaden’s post, supported by detailed, exhaustive research, you too may become a believer. -CCE

I remain surprised at the number of intelligent, articulate, and well-read legal professionals who still use ‘and/or’ in legal writing.

I am therefore creating this post to document a fairly complete list of authorities that support what I think is the better (if not obvious) view: never use ‘and/or’ in legal writing (or any writing). And yes, I said ‘never.’

Continue 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...

A Punctuation Guide for Everyone.

05 Wednesday Oct 2016

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

≈ Comments Off on A Punctuation Guide for Everyone.

Tags

Grammar & Punctuation, Jordan Penn, Legal Writing

The Punctuation Guide, by Jordan Penn, J.D.

http://www.thepunctuationguide.com/index.html

I am impressed. Mr. Penn, after exhaustive research, created this unique punctuation guide. This is a keeper. -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...

What Does “Shall” Really Mean?

05 Wednesday Oct 2016

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

≈ Comments Off on What Does “Shall” Really Mean?

Tags

Legal Analysis, Legal Writing, Legal Writing Prof Blog, Professor Joe Kimble, Professor Mark E. Wojcik

Shall Means “Must.” Unless it Means “Should.” Mark E. Wojcik, Professor of Law, John Marshall Law School (Chicago), Legal Writing Prof Blog

http://bit.ly/2dg7M46

In the legal writing world of contracts, legislation, and case law, legal writers debate about the meaning of the word “shall.” Many legal writing scholars have argued that “shall” means “must” without exception, and that is what I was taught in paralegal school. Professor Wojcik makes a convincing argument for dropping the ambiguous “shall” in favor of words that leave no question about what they mean. -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...

The Em-Dash.

20 Tuesday Sep 2016

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

≈ Comments Off on The Em-Dash.

Tags

Em Dash, Grammar Girl Blog, Punctuation

When to Use—and Not Use—an Em-Dash, by Chris Lele, read by Mignon Fogarty, Grammar Girl’s QuickandDirtyTips.com™

http://bit.ly/2cGeRNi

When people think of punctuation marks, it is usually the handy comma, the imperious colon, or the overly excited exclamation mark that comes to mind. The stodgy semicolon and sinuous question mark might get thrown into the mix, but rarely—if ever—will somebody mention a punctuation mark that, while omnipresent, often goes unnoticed. This is surprising considering that this punctuation mark is highly versatile and a favorite of skilled writers. It can add a spice—or a dash, if you will—to a sentence by adding emphasis to certain words and phrases.

Continue 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...

Using the “Rule of Three.”

10 Saturday Sep 2016

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Closing Argument, Jury Persuasion, Legal Writing, Opening Argument, Oral Argument, Storytelling, Trial Tips and Techniques

≈ Comments Off on Using the “Rule of Three.”

Tags

Dr. Ken Broda-Bahm, Legal Writing, Oral Argument, Persuasive Litigator, Rule of Three

Remember the Rule of 3: It’s Simple, Logical, and Effective, by Dr. Ken Broda-Bahm, Persuasive Litigator™

http://bit.ly/2chpUMD

So simple, but so persuasive. It is especially useful in oral argument, which is the topic of this post from Dr. Broda-Bahm. -CCE

[W]hen litigators are looking for a way to paint a bit of style and rhetorical effectiveness into their oral arguments, openings, or closings, the rule of three ought to be one of the first items in your tool box. Focusing on — you guessed it — three reasons, this post will explain why.

Continue 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...
← 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