• Home
  • About Me
  • Disclaimer

The Researching Paralegal

~ Articles and Research for Legal Professionals

The Researching Paralegal

Category Archives: Legal Writing

Text And Tweet Abbreviations Are Okay – Sometimes.

28 Tuesday Oct 2014

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

≈ Comments Off on Text And Tweet Abbreviations Are Okay – Sometimes.

Tags

Abbreviations, Grammar Girl, Legal Writing, Mignon Fogarty, Text Messages, Tweets

Text Messaging, the Internet, and Formality, by Mignon Fogarty, Grammar Girl Blog

http://tinyurl.com/pxw477f

These admonitions apply to emails as well. -CCE

A few weeks ago I saw something that before then I had heard of but hadn’t seen myself: a smiley face in a very formal document, or, I suppose I should say, what should have been a very formal document. I literally thought of it and then sputtered for days.

There’s nothing new about cute abbreviations. OK, one of the most recognized English words in the world, came out of a cute abbreviation, and America’s founding fathers could have used the abbreviation IOU (for I owe you). A few decades later, the cost of sending a telegram encouraged people to use even more abbreviations and shortened forms of words. Today though, smartphone-wielding text messagers and tweeters may be playing with language and abbreviations more than ever before. And there’s nothing wrong with that! If you want to text your best buddy you’re going to be l8 (late) or that you LOLed (laughed out loud), have at it. That’s an appropriately informal situation. I just discovered that my phone has Halloween emoji, so you may be seeing ghosts or pumpkins on my Twitter feed soon. They look like fun.

But here are some formal documents in which you shouldn’t use emoji, smiley faces, or text messaging abbreviations: business plans, mission statements, resumes, cover letters, letters of recommendation, or pretty much any school assignment that I can think of right now. Seriously, you still need to take some things seriously.

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...

Compilation of Ken Adams’ Articles on Contract Drafting.

25 Saturday Oct 2014

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

≈ Comments Off on Compilation of Ken Adams’ Articles on Contract Drafting.

Tags

Adams On Contract Drafting Blog, AdamsDrafting Blog, Contract Law, Ken Adams, Legal Writing, The Koncise Drafter

Ken Adams’s Articles, Adams on Contract Drafting Blog

http://www.adamsdrafting.com/writing/ken-adamss-articles/

In addition to Ken’s posts from February 2013, this blog contains Ken’s posts from The Koncise Drafter (from December 2010 to February 2013) and from the AdamsDrafting blog (from May 2006 to December 2010).

 

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...

Yes, It Is Okay To Use The Em Dash.

23 Thursday Oct 2014

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

≈ Comments Off on Yes, It Is Okay To Use The Em Dash.

Tags

Em Dash, Lawyerist Blog, Matthew Butterick, Matthew Salzwedel, Typography for Lawyers

The Enigmatic Em Dash, by Matthew Salzwedel, Lawyerist Blog

(This column is adapted from an article originally published in the Minnesota Lawyer on July 1, 2013.)

http://tinyurl.com/q9lkjfc

Knowing how to punctuate properly is essential to good legal writing. Besides the semicolon, though, lawyers probably misunderstand—and as a result misuse—the em dash more than any other punctuation mark. That’s because it’s possible for a lawyer to write for an entire career without ever having to use it.

But lawyers who consciously avoid using the em dash forsake an important legal-writing tool. They’re like carpenters who choose to work with rudimentary tools instead of precision instruments. The job gets done; but the result is hardly refined. . . .

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 Parentheticals As A Legal Writing Tool.

21 Tuesday Oct 2014

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

≈ Comments Off on Using Parentheticals As A Legal Writing Tool.

Tags

Legal Skills Prof Blog, Legal Writing, Nick Wagoner, Parentheticals, String Citations

Parentheticals are an excellent legal writing tool, especially in string citations. They can be used to reinforce a legal argument without a lengthy explanation, like this:

“All cases cited by Defendants are very different from this case. In all of them, the danger was plainly visible. See Transport Indemnity Co. v. Page, 406 P.2d 980 (Okla. 1965)(daytime accident); Haworth v. Mosher, 395 F.2d 566 (10th Cir. 1968)(dust storm on highway clearly visible by approaching motorists); Thur v. Dunkley, 474 P.2d 403 (Okla. 1970)(accident occurred during daylight with ample unobstructed vision from either direction).”

When used incorrectly, they frustrate the reader. In this three-part series, Nick Wagoner illustrates the best, and worst, ways to use parentheticals. –CCE

Guest blogger Nick Wagoner on “Common Parenthetical Pitfalls” [Part 1], by James B. Levy, Editor, Legal Skills Prof Blog

http://tinyurl.com/6qdrg8k

Tips For Writing Better Parentheticals – Part 2, by James B. Levy, Editor, Legal Skills Prof Blog

http://tinyurl.com/6rn6plw

More On Writing Good Parentheticals From Our Guest Blogger Nick Wagoner [Part 3], by James B. Levy, Editor, Legal Skills Prof Blog

http://tinyurl.com/8a3aker

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...

Does The Law Really Require Legalese?

16 Thursday Oct 2014

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

≈ Comments Off on Does The Law Really Require Legalese?

Tags

Joseph Kimble, Legal Writing, Legal Writing Editor Blog, Legalese, Plain Language

You Think the Law Requires Legalese?, by Joseph Kimble, Legal Writing Editor Blog

http://legalwritingeditor.com/2013/10/21/think-law-requires-legalese/

A classic. -CCE

There’s a sign that, in some configuration, appears on every gas pump in Michigan, although most drivers probably don’t even notice it anymore. You can see one in the photo to the right.

Let’s put aside the all-capitals, which are notoriously hard to read. And never mind that the first and second items aren’t exactly parallel. (‘Stop engine. Don’t smoke.’) The trouble — linguistically, stylistically, semantically — shows up in the third item.

Look at that little sentence. We get an explicit subject, A person, which really throws off the parallelism. The lawyer’s shall — now corrupted and ambiguous from misuse — does not belong even in statutes or regulations, let alone on a gas pump. Remain in attendance? Oh, please. The first of is unnecessary. And for the big comedic finish, we’re seemingly told that the nozzle must be able to see the person.

The fix isn’t hard: ‘You must stay outside your vehicle and be able to see the nozzle.’ Or for parallelism with the first two items: ‘Stay outside your vehicle, and make sure you can see the nozzle.’

Now, are people likely to misunderstand the pump version? No. Is this the worst public writing on the planet? Obviously not. But by tracing this mundane example to its source, anyone who cares about clarity in legal and official documents can learn a set of critical lessons. . . .

 

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 A Business Memorandum.

13 Monday Oct 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Business Memorandums

≈ Comments Off on Writing A Business Memorandum.

Tags

Business Memorandum, Legal Writing, Loyola University New Orleans

The Business Memo, College of Humanities and Natural Sciences, Loyola University New Orleans

http://loyno.edu/wac/business-memo

The memorandum, usually called a memo, is a common form of internal communication in business and academia. Memos have many purposes, including informing employees, giving directions, outlining procedures, requesting data, supplying responses, and confirming decisions. But essentially there are three basic reasons to write a memo:

  • To persuade to action (we should do this)
  • To issue a directive (do this)
  • To provide a report (here’s what was done, or here’s what we found out)

Every good memo includes:

  • A clear statement of purpose, stated upfront: I am writing because . . .
  • Information about what the reader needs to know: The facts are . . .
  • Statement of any action requested, ordered, or undertaken: I will, or I propose that you . . .

General points to remember . . . .

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...

Corporate Memo Writing Guide.

11 Saturday Oct 2014

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

≈ Comments Off on Corporate Memo Writing Guide.

Tags

Corporate Memos, Internal Memos, Legal Writing, Quartz Blog, Vickie Elmer

The Complete Guide To Writing Corporate Memos, by Vickie Elmer, Quartz Blog

http://qz.com/153401/complete-guide-to-writing-corporate-memos/

A recent all-staff internal memo from two senior Yahoo executives addressed its readers as ‘pilgrim,’ then ‘sailor,’ and mentioned ‘T-Rex,’ ‘The Itsy-Bitsy Pterodactyl,’ the ‘hippocampian wagons’ and ‘Ayn Randian Objectivism’ all in one paragraph.

That widely ridiculed email served as a reminder that internal memos matter as much as any marketing brochure or press release—especially given how likely they are these days to leak online. ‘What we write in memo form is going to become our business persona,’ says Sandra Lamb, author of How to Write It.

That persona could be someone who speaks in jargon and ‘stilted business-school gobbledygook’—as Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer did in a memo announcing leadership changes. It could be brutally matter-of-fact, as former Nokia CEO Stephen Elop was in a wake-up call to staff. Or it could be funny and enduringly honest, as Groupon CEO Andrew Mason was when he announced his resignation. Here are some tips to ensure that your memo is clear, effective, and memorable—for the right 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...

Garner’s Ten Legal Writing Tips.

05 Sunday Oct 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Briefing Cases, Citations, Editing, Legal Analysis, Legal Argument, Legal Writing, Proofreading, Public Domain Citations, Readability, Spell Checking, The Bluebook

≈ Comments Off on Garner’s Ten Legal Writing Tips.

Tags

ABA Journal, Bryan Garner, Computer Legal Research, Editing, Legal Analysis, Legal Citations, Legal Writing, Proofreading

Ten Tips for Legal Writing, by Judith D. Fischer, Legal Writing Prof Blog

http://tinyurl.com/pwlxeyt

Bryan Garner’s latest article in in the ABA Journal is titled Ten Tips for Better Legal Writing. Some Garner of his tips are especially appropriate for law students, who could appropriately paste ‘Don’t rely exclusively on computer research’ on the wall by their work space. That would serve as a reminder that unfocused computer searches are like a box of chocolates–you never know what you’re going to get.  Garner also advises legal writers to be neither too tentative nor too cocksure in their conclusions, both of which are hazards for beginning law students. And Garner’s tenth tip would improve the professionalism of many a student paper: ‘Proofread one more time than you think necessary.’

 

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 Judge Explains How To Lose An Appeal – Works Every Time!

27 Saturday Sep 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Appellate Writing, Bad Legal Writing, Brief Writing, Editing, Fonts, Footnotes, Legal Analysis, Legal Argument, Legal Writing, Legalese, Proofreading, Psychology, Readability

≈ Comments Off on Appellate Judge Explains How To Lose An Appeal – Works Every Time!

Tags

Appellate Brief Writing, Appellate Record Citations, Bad Legal Writing, Hon. Alex Kozinski, Legal Writing, The Montana Lawyer

The Wrong Stuff: How You Too Can…Lose Your Appeal, by Hon. Alex Kozinski, 1992 BYU L. Rev. 325, The Montana Lawyer, 23 Mont. Law 5 (Oct. 1997)

Webmaster’s note: This was originally presented as a lecture at Brigham Young University, J. Reuben Clark School of Law on January 21, 1992. It was later recycled as The Wrong Stuff, 1992 BYU L. Rev. 325. The lecture was repeated during the 1997 Montana State Bar Annual Meeting, and again recycled in the Montana Lawyer as How You Too… Can Lose Your Appeal (and you thought Judge Kozinski didn’t care about the environment!).

The BYU L. Rev. edition is available as a PDF scan. What follows is the Montana Lawyer edition.

[former link is broken – see new link below]

https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1748&context=lawreview

 

When George Bousliman called a few months ago and invited me to come, I said, ‘What could I possibly talk about that would be of interest to members of the State Bar of Montana?’ He said, ‘The truth is, we don’t really care what you say; what we really want is a cover boy for The Montana Lawyer.’

Well, I have my pride. I want to be loved for my intellect, not just my face. So, I decided to talk on a totally irrelevant topic that I know a little something about: How to lose an appeal.

* * *

First, you want to tell the judges right up front that you have a rotten case. The best way to do this is to file a fat brief. So if the rules give you 50 *6 pages, ask for 75, 90, 125–the more the better. Even if you don’t get the extra pages, you will let the judges know you don’t have an argument capable of being presented in a simple, direct, persuasive fashion. Keep in mind that simple arguments are winning arguments; convoluted arguments are sleeping pills on paper.

But don’t just rely on the length of your brief to telegraph that you haven’t got much of a case. No. Try to come up with something that will annoy the judges, make it difficult for them to read what you have written and make them mistrust whatever they can read. Here are a few suggestions: Bind your brief so that it falls apart when the judge gets about half way through it. Or you could try a little trick recently used by a major law firm: Assemble your brief so that every other page reads upside down. This is likely to induce motion sickness and it’s always a fine idea to have the judge associate your argument with nausea. Also–this is a biggie–make sure your photocopier is low on toner or take a key and scratch the glass so it will put annoying lines on every page.

Best of all, cheat on the page limit. . . .

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...

Judge Posner Writes A Form Collections Letter.

16 Tuesday Sep 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Consumer Law, Debt Collection, Legal Writing

≈ Comments Off on Judge Posner Writes A Form Collections Letter.

Tags

Collections, Judge Richard Posner, Lady (Legal) Lawyer Blog, Letter Template, Megan E. Boyd

Judge Posner’s Collections Letter Template, by Megan E. Boyd, Lady (Legal) Lawyer Blog

http://ladylegalwriter.blogspot.com/2014/05/technical-difficulties.html

Courts don’t often help lawyers out by providing templates, but Judge Posner’s opinion in Bartlett v. Heibl, 128 F.3d 497 (7th Cir. 1997) offers a form letter for those seeking to collect certain consumer debts. . . .

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...

Show, Don’t Tell, When You Use The Right Word.

03 Wednesday Sep 2014

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

≈ Comments Off on Show, Don’t Tell, When You Use The Right Word.

Tags

Jason Steed, Legal Solutions Blog, Legal Writing, Persuasive Writing

Legal Writing: Word Choice, by Jason Steed, Legal Solutions Blog

http://blog.legalsolutions.thomsonreuters.com/practice-of-law/legal-writing-word-choice/

Every good lawyer knows that persuasion begins with framing the issue, and framing the issue begins with effective word choice. But many lawyers don’t realize, or occasionally forget, just how effective good word choice can be—or worse, they misunderstand what it means to make effective word choices. They think, for example, that labeling an act as “extremely egregious” will help the court to understand just how terrible the act was. But every good writer knows that good writing means showing, not telling—and adverbs and adjectives are all about telling.

In other words, adverbs and adjectives are not a sign of good persuasive writing. If you find yourself using adverbs or adjectives to get your point across, then you’re probably making bad word choices. Why? Because adverbs modify verbs, and adjectives modify nouns—and if your verbs and nouns need modifying, then they probably aren’t the best verbs and nouns you could be using.

So how effective can simple nouns and verbs be? . . . .

 

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...

“Comes Now” — The Most Common Legalese Words Ever?

30 Saturday Aug 2014

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

≈ Comments Off on “Comes Now” — The Most Common Legalese Words Ever?

Tags

Comes Now, Legalese, Michael M. Simpson, The Grammar Snob Blog

Comes Now?, by Michael M. Simpson, The Grammar Snob Blog

http://grammar-ttlms.blogspot.com/2007/07/comes-now.html

“Comes Now” is probably one of the most common legalese phrases, and often used in pleadings, motions, briefs — almost any legal document except contracts. (If Comes Now shows up often in contracts, please don’t tell me. Let me keep some of my happy place illusions.) If you have a legalese phrase used more frequently than “Comes Now,” please share!

As I have said before, there is no statute, case law, regulation, constitution, or any other legal requirement to use legalese. I’ve looked. If you disagree, please point me to that legal authority. I have been looking for it a long time. I’ve been told by a lawyer that they use it because it just sounds “more legal.” Judge for yourself. -CCE

As always, because I have a real job I don’t get to post to my blog as much as I like. I’ve been editing a post on dangling modifiers, since there are only 52,138 other internet pages explaining why dangling modifiers are bad, but I haven’t finished mine, which will be the pinnacle of dangling modifier criticism, I suppose. (Again, for those of you who haven’t the foggiest idea what a dangling modifier is, surely there’s a NASCAR race stored in your Tivo ready to watch.) Instead, I’ve got a blog for my fellow attorneys, many of whom file pleadings in court containing the phrase ‘Comes now.’ As in:

‘Comes now Plaintiff, John Doe, and complains of Defendant, David Evildoer, and pray the Court grant him judgment, and for cause of action would show the following.’

A question. You’re sitting on your favorite barstool at the local watering hole, taking the edge off a rough day in the salt mine with your favorite poison (for me, a tall draft of Harp or Warsteiner, or on a Friday, a shot of Maker’s Mark with a sidecar of ice) and your best friend walks in to join you. Do you exclaim ‘Comes now Drew, and sits next to mine self to drink beer’? Okay, if you answered this question ‘yes,’ an exciting career in writing boring pleadings awaits you. If you answered ‘no,’ then I understand why you hate legalese. . . .

 

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...

2013 Judicial Writing Manual: A Pocket Guide For Judges.

19 Tuesday Aug 2014

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

≈ Comments Off on 2013 Judicial Writing Manual: A Pocket Guide For Judges.

Tags

Appellate Writing, Federal Judges, Federal Judicial Center, Judicial Writing Manual: A Pocket Guide for Judges (Second Edition), Legal Writing

Judicial Writing Manual: A Pocket Guide for Judges (Second Edition), Federal Judicial Center 2013 (with huge hat tip to William P. Statsky!)

http://www.fjc.gov/public/pdf.nsf/lookup/judicial-writing-manual-2d-fjc-2013.pdf/$file/judicial-writing-manual-2d-fjc-2013.pdf

Yesterday I posted a link to the First Edition of the Judicial Writing Manual. Twenty years after the First Edition, the Federal Judicial Center published this Second Edition. The goal of the Second Edition, like the First, is summed up in its Forward below. -CCE

Indeed, with so much of today’s writing embedded in the truncated protocols of social media and other “real time” forms of expression, the clarity and persuasive quality the authors of the first edition sought to teach are particularly important for judges’ writing. But the elements of good writing are remarkably constant, and we think that you will find the principles explained so thoughtfully in the first edition no less applicable today.

Jeremy D. Fogel, Director, Federal Judicial Center

 

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...

Federal Judges Writing Manual.

17 Sunday Aug 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Federal Judges, Judges, Jury Instructions, Legal Analysis, Legal Writing, Statutory Interpretation, Style Manuals, Trial Tips and Techniques

≈ Comments Off on Federal Judges Writing Manual.

Tags

Federal Judges, Federal Judicial Center, Judicial Writing Manual, Legal Writing, Style Manual, Trial Tips & Techniques

Judicial Writing Manual, Federal Judicial Center

http://tinyurl.com/k5x898o

This Writing Manual is obviously written specifically for federal judges. Twenty-four experienced jurists were interviewed to write the Manual.  Its board of editors are judges, law professors, and legal writers. Although written for federal judges, it provides insight for any legal writer, especially those who practice in federal court. The Manual is available in print or you can download it as a .pdf document.

This is more. Look at the left-hand side of the page, and click on “Recent Materials“: http://tinyurl.com/odjltbl. From there, it just gets better. At this link you will find papers on specific areas of law. One that caught my eye is Meghan Dunn’s “Jurors’ and Attorneys’ Use of Social Media During Voir Dire, Trials, and Deliberations: A Report to the Judicial Conference Committee on Court Administration and Case Management.”  It is available only online.

Even if you do not practice in federal court, this is definitely worth a look. -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...

Fine Tune Legal Interpretation and Analysis of Precedent and Stare Decisis.

10 Sunday Aug 2014

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

≈ Comments Off on Fine Tune Legal Interpretation and Analysis of Precedent and Stare Decisis.

Tags

Legal Analysis, Legal Research, Michigan Law Review, Precedent, Randy J. Kozel, Rule of Law, Stare Decisis

The Rule of Law and the Perils of Precedent, by Randy J. Kozel, Michigan Law Review

http://tinyurl.com/jvqd3y3

Introduction

In a world where circumstances never changed and where every judicial decision was unassailably correct, applying the doctrine of stare decisis would be a breeze. Fidelity to precedent and commitment to sound legal interpretation would meld into a single, coherent enterprise. That world, alas, is not the one we live in. Like so much else in law, the concept of stare decisis encompasses a series of trade-offs-and difficult ones at that. Prominent among them is the tension between allowing past decisions to remain settled and establishing a body of legal rules that is flexible enough to adapt and improve over time.[1]

Notwithstanding pervasive disagreement over the application of stare decisis to particular disputes, the doctrine is well established in American jurisprudence.[2] Indeed, the Supreme Court has gone so far as to describe stare decisis as indispensable to the rule of law.[3] But as Jeremy Waldron skillfully reminds us, justifying the doctrine requires more than platitudes.[4] Even a proposition as fundamental and seemingly intuitive as the ability of stare decisis to promote the rule of law conceals a considerable amount of analytical nuance. Professor Waldron concentrates on developing what we might think of as the rule-of-law case for precedent. Central to his project is the recognition that rule-of-law benefits arise at several distinct points along the path from initial ruling to subsequent application. The touchstone is the principle of ‘generality,’ pursuant to which individual jurists subjugate their personal beliefs to the vision of a unified court working across space and time to fashion generally applicable norms.[5]

In this Essay, I wish to build on Professor Waldron’s thoughtful analysis by saying something more about the other side of stare decisis. The rule-of-law benefits of stare decisis are invariably accompanied by rule-of-law costs. In light of those costs, the ultimate question is not whether there are ways in which stare decisis promotes the rule of law. Rather, it is whether stare decisis advances the rule of law on net. Some departures from precedent can promote the rule of law, and some reaffirmances can impair it. Even if the rule of law were the only value that mattered, excessive fidelity to flawed precedents would be cause for concern.[6] That rule-of-law ambivalence, I will suggest, should be brought to bear in calibrating the strength of deference that judicial precedents receive. . . .

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...

Arrogant Legal Writing Gives Texas A Horrible, Terrible Very Bad Day.

26 Saturday Jul 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Appellate Law, Appellate Writing, Bad Legal Writing, Brief Writing, Legal Analysis, Legal Argument, Legal Writing, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, U.S. District Courts, Voting Rights Act

≈ Comments Off on Arrogant Legal Writing Gives Texas A Horrible, Terrible Very Bad Day.

Tags

Attorney Fees, Bad Legal Writing, Judge Rosemary M. Collyer, Kevin Underhill, Legal Writing, Lowering the Bar Blog, Prevailing Party, Shelby County, State of Texas, Voting District, Voting Rights Act

Bad Attitude Costs Texas in Fee Dispute, by Kevin Underhill, Lowering the Bar Blog

http://www.loweringthebar.net/2014/06/bad-attitude-costs-texas.html

 Hey, I get it—sometimes when you win and you think the other side’s position was bogus, it’s hard not to get all smug and self-righteous.

But you really should try.

Not trying very hard—well, not trying at all—cost the State of Texas a lot of money on June 18, when a judge awarded other parties in a voting-rights case $1,096,770 in legal fees and costs, even though Texas had a decent argument that it was the prevailing party and so it should get paid. (McClatchy DC; thanks, Mark.)

In the U.S., normally each side has to pay its own fees, but some statutes say the ‘prevailing party’ is entitled to recover fees from the loser. But exactly who ‘prevails’ in a lawsuit is not always clear, and that was the case in this lawsuit, which involved Texas’s plans to redraw its voting districts. (Skip down three paragraphs or so if that could not sound more boring.)

Under the Voting Rights Act—Still here? Nerd. Under the Voting Rights Act, Texas was one of the states that had to get federal ‘preclearance’ for redistricting because of the history of discrimination there. Texas decided to sue for a declaration that its plans were okay, and the feds opposed. Other parties (Democrats, basically) intervened because they also wanted to oppose. Texas mostly lost in the district court, and it appealed. In the meantime, though, it came up with new plans that were more likely to comply with the court’s order.

One day before the new plans became law, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Shelby County that all this VRA preclearance stuff was unconstitutional—or had become unconstitutional at some point over the last 50 years, anyway, discrimination now being a thing of the past, you see. Told you so, said Texas, and moved to dismiss the still-pending case involving its first set of plans.

Okay, so who ‘prevailed’ in that mess? The Democratic groups said they did, because Texas lost the first ruling and changed its plans, just like they wanted it to, and they filed motions seeking over $1 million in fees. Texas did not agree.

It did not agree so much, in fact, that it didn’t even bother to file responses. Or, rather, it did file something but it couldn’t bring itself to call the document a ‘response.’ It filed this three-page thing it called an ‘Advisory,’ saying that not only did Shelby County mean Texas won, it meant Texas had essentially always been right because the law was unconstitutional all along (an ‘affront’ and a ‘nullity’), and the case never should have been brought. That’s wrong for a couple of reasons, I think, but Texas was so sure of itself that it didn’t bother to say much of anything else.

As the judge’s decision made clear, this was a Bad Idea. . . .

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...

Senior Judge Shares Tip To Avoid “Lousy Brief Writing.”

22 Tuesday Jul 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Abbreviations, Acronyms, Appellate Law, Bad Legal Writing, Brief Writing, District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals, Initialisms, Legal Writing, Readability, Style Manuals

≈ Comments Off on Senior Judge Shares Tip To Avoid “Lousy Brief Writing.”

Tags

Acronymns, Brief Writing, Bryan Garner, Garner’s Dictionary of Legal Usage, Initialisms, Legal Writing, Louisiana Appeals Blog, Raymond Ward, Senior Judge Laurence Silberman

Don’t Let Your Brief Be DOA, by Raymond Ward, Louisiana Civil Appeals Blog

http://tinyurl.com/k8urt5j

Here is a briefwriting tip courtesy of Senior Judge Laurence Silberman of the D.C. Circuit: avoid overuse of uncommon initialisms.

Petitioner’s brief, unfortunately, was laden with obscure acronyms notwithstanding the admonitions in our handbook (and on our website) to avoid uncommon acronyms. Since the brief was signed by a faculty member at Columbia Law School, that was rather dismaying both because of ignorance of our standards and because the practice constitutes lousy brief writing. [Ouch!] . . . .

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...

It Could Happen To Anyone – But Justice Scalia Isn’t Just Anyone.

22 Tuesday Jul 2014

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

≈ Comments Off on It Could Happen To Anyone – But Justice Scalia Isn’t Just Anyone.

Tags

Good Legal Writing, Justice Scalia, Legal Writing, Proofreading, Tiffany Johnson

Would You Like Salt on That Crow?, by Tiffany Johnson, Good Legal Writing

http://goodlegalwriting.com/2014/07/22/would-you-like-salt-on-that-crow/

So, the Honorable Justice Antonin Scalia — renown legal genius and reigning undisputed heavyweight champion of biting rhetorical snark — has now been reduced to making clandestine corrections to one of his famously condescending dissents. . . .

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...

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...

More Yummy Candy for Writers.

12 Saturday Jul 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Citations, Editing, Legal Writing, Proofreading, Readability, Spell Checking, Style Manuals

≈ Comments Off on More Yummy Candy for Writers.

Tags

Grammar and Punctuation, Proofreading, Style Manual, The University of Wisconsin-Madison, UW Madison Writer’s Handbook

UW Madison Writer’s Handbook, The Writing Center @ The University of Wisconsin-Madison

http://writing.wisc.edu/Handbook/index.html

For all writers, I strongly recommend a review of all the sections under “Grammar and Punctuation,” but especially: “Subject-Verb Agreement,” “How to Proofread,” “Twelve Common Errors: An Editing Checklist,” and “Clear, Concise Sentences.”

If you are a legal writer, please note that this style manual’s rules on citations are not in sync with The Bluebook, ALWD, or court rules. -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 New ALWD Citation Guide.

05 Saturday Jul 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in ALWD, Citations, Legal Writing, The Bluebook

≈ Comments Off on The New ALWD Citation Guide.

Tags

ALWD Citation Manual, Citations, Coleen Barger, Legal Writing Prof, Legal Writing Prof Blog, Legal Wrting, The Bluebook

The Inside Scoop About The New ALWD Citation Guide, by Legal Writing Prof, Legal Writing Prof Blog

http://tinyurl.com/n9beufc

Let’s not forget that the 20th edition of the Bluebook is coming, although the publication date has yet to be announced. -CCE

At the LWI conference, members got inside information about ALWD’s new citation guide. It’s no longer called a manual–the title of the fifth edition is the ALWD Guide to Legal Citation. Chief editor Coleen Barger and contributor Brooke Bowman explained that the new guide has eliminated the differences between it and the Bluebook. That means, among other things, that large-and-small caps are now prescribed for certain law review citations and abbreviations and citations have been standardized to comport with traditional formats.  But the new guide will be easier to use than the Bluebook. Plentiful symbols clarify when spaces are needed, and law review formats are integrated into the subject matter sections but clearly labeled by a title, an identifying marginal line, and a warning symbol.

A companion site includes exercises that students who purchase the book can access. An on-line teacher’s manual will be available soon and will include comparison charts between the fourth and fifth editions and between the fifth edition and the Bluebook. . . .

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...

Internet’s Largest, Comprehensive Directory, and Search Engine for Acronyms, Abbreviations. and Initialisms.

05 Saturday Jul 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Abbreviations, Acronyms, Initialisms, Legal Writing, References

≈ Comments Off on Internet’s Largest, Comprehensive Directory, and Search Engine for Acronyms, Abbreviations. and Initialisms.

Tags

Abbreviations, Abbreviations.com, Acronyms, DailyWritingTips Blog, Initialisms, Mark Nichol, Stands4 Netowrk

Abbreviations.com, a Member of the Stands4 Network

http://www.abbreviations.com/

What the heck is an initialism? Happily, Mark Nichol at DailyWritingTips Blog has a complete explanation here: http://www.dailywritingtips.com/initialisms-and-acronyms/. -CCE

We are the world’s largest and most comprehensive directory and search engine for acronyms, abbreviations and initialisms on the Internet. Abbreviations.com holds hundreds of thousands of entries organized by a large variety of categories from computing and the Web to governmental, medicine and business and it is maintained and expanded by a large community of passionate editors. Read more about our awards and press coverage.

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...

Some Of The Common Mistakes Made In Appeals.

04 Friday Jul 2014

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

≈ Comments Off on Some Of The Common Mistakes Made In Appeals.

Tags

Appellate Briefs, Appellate Law, Appellate Procedure, Brief Writing, Findlaw.com, Legal Argument, Scott P. Stolley, Thompson & Knight LLP

Appeal in Error: Common Mistakes Made in Appeals, by Scott P. Stolley of Thompson & Knight LLP, Findlaw.com

http://tinyurl.com/knotqwo

Some lawyers prefer trial litigation. Some prefer appellate law. For those who enjoy litigation, need to appeal, but don’t want to do it themselves, hire an appellate lawyer. There are appellate specialists out there who know the in’s and out’s of appellate procedure.

Lawyers who specialize in appellate law often have experience working for the justices or former justices of that court. It gives them an unique insight into the personalities and proclivities of that court. Sometimes that is a useful thing. – CCE

After a trial, the losing party often has too much at stake, emotionally or financially, to let the verdict stand unchallenged. Appeal is the next option, but many litigants do not fully understand how different an appeal is from a trial. They may also underestimate the differences between trial lawyers and appellate lawyers. These differences may be overlooked when inexperienced litigants launch an appeal. The following is a discussion of common mistakes that such litigants regularly make. . . .

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...

Style Manuals for the CIA and NSA SIGNIT and More.

04 Friday Jul 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Editing, Fonts, Legal Writing, Proofreading, Quotations, Readability, Style Manuals

≈ Comments Off on Style Manuals for the CIA and NSA SIGNIT and More.

Tags

beSpacific Blog., CIA, Grammar and Punctuation, NSA SIGNIT, Sabrina I. Pacifici, Style Manuals, Writing

CIA Style Manual Available Online, by Sabrina I. Pacifici, beSpacific Blog

http://tinyurl.com/mshotwq

If you are not familiar with Ms. Pacifici, I encourage you to check out her blog. She is an extraordinary researcher. These materials are interesting enough on their own, but you will see that the links take you to the FOIA Resources at The National Security Archive.  The Government Attic Blog is also worth a good, long look. -CCE

Via governmentattic.org:

  • ‘National Security Counselors law firm has obtained a copy of the CIA Directorate of Intelligence Style Manual, Eighth Edition, 2011.  It is entitled Style Manual & Writers Guide for Intelligence Publications. The CIA Guide is not alone.  Each of the members of the Intelligence Community ­IC ­ have one or more Style Manuals to conform the reports and documents of that agency to a consistent writing style and usage.  This is highly important to achieving clear and unambiguous communications of such matters.

  • Here is another example: the NSA SIGINT Style Guide

  • The National Security Counselors web site publishes a large number of interesting documents released under FOIA, or under litigation arising from FOIA requests.’

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...
← 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