• Home
  • About Me
  • Disclaimer

The Researching Paralegal

~ Articles and Research for Legal Professionals

The Researching Paralegal

Category Archives: Legal Writing

George Orwell’s “Politics and the English Language”

01 Tuesday Jul 2014

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

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

Tags

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

Politics and the English Language, George Orwell’s Library

http://tinyurl.com/nsagx

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Share this:

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

String Citations – Good or Bad Legal Writing Tool?

29 Sunday Jun 2014

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

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

Tags

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

String Theory, by Kirby Griffis, BriefRight Blog

http://briefright.com/string-theory

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

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

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

Now what?

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

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

Share this:

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

Lots and Lots of Jury Instructions.

29 Sunday Jun 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Jury Instructions, Jury Instructions, Jury Persuasion, Legal Writing, Trial Tips and Techniques

≈ Comments Off on Lots and Lots of Jury Instructions.

Tags

Center for Jury Studies, Jury Communication, Jury instructions, Jury Persuasion, LanguageandLaw.org, Peter Meijes Tiersma, Plain Language, Trial Tips & Techniques

The Language Of Jury Instructions, by Peter Meijes Tiersma, LanguageandLaw.org

http://tinyurl.com/qy9z2rv

Lots of information and examples on jury instructions, including a Manual on Communicating with Juries, links to criminal and civil jury instructions, to plain language jury instructions, to jury instructions for specific states, and more. If you need help writing jury instructions, this would be a good place to start. -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...

Checked Your Readability Score Lately?

28 Saturday Jun 2014

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

≈ Comments Off on Checked Your Readability Score Lately?

Tags

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

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

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

Think you can write? Do these four things.

First, pull out the last brief that you wrote.

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

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

Third, let the readability feature score your work.

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

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

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

Share this:

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

Brief Writing: The Table of Contents and Table of Authorities.

28 Saturday Jun 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Brief Writing, Legal Writing, Table of Authorities

≈ Comments Off on Brief Writing: The Table of Contents and Table of Authorities.

Tags

Brief Writing, Celia C. Elwell, Legal Assistant Today, Legal Writing, Paralegal, Paralegal Today, Table of Authorities, Table of Contents

Finishing Your Brief By Crafting The Table Of Contents And Table Of Authorities, by Celia C. Elwell, RP (Originally appeared in print in Legal Assistant Today as “Finishing Your Brief,” November/December 2003), Paralegal Today

http://tinyurl.com/72vcuuq

Sometimes, especially in law, it’s the little things that make all the difference. The cover page, Table of Contents and Table of Authorities are used for major briefs, such as briefs in support of dispositive or trial motions. Sometimes they are mandatory; other times they can be used to enhance a brief and make it easier for the court to read and understand. Regardless, all three of these tools are excellent methods for enhancing any lengthy or complex brief filed with the court, and paralegals should make sure they are familiar with all these tools. . . .

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 Brief A Case.

28 Saturday Jun 2014

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

≈ Comments Off on How To Brief A Case.

Tags

Briefing Cases, Christopher Pyle, John College of Criminal Justice, Legal Analysis, Legal Writing

How To Brief A Case, created by Christopher Pyle, 1982 and revised by Prof. Katherine Killoran, Feb. 1999, Lloyd Sealy Library, John Jay College of Criminal Justice

http://www.lib.jjay.cuny.edu/research/brief.html

A nice breakdown on how to brief a case (not to be confused with writing a legal brief for the court) for paralegal and law students. I would add “judgment” at the end of the steps – the decision made by the court (e.g., affirmed, reversed and remanded, etc.).  If you are interested in legal writing and have never learned how to brief a case, I recommend it. It will help you learn how to identify the key facts of the case and how the court applied those facts to the law to reach its ruling. -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...

Judge Posner Critique on Structuring Statutory-Interpretation Books.

28 Saturday Jun 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Brief Writing, Case Briefs, Legal Analysis, Legal Argument, Legal Writing, Legislative History, Statutory Interpretation

≈ Comments Off on Judge Posner Critique on Structuring Statutory-Interpretation Books.

Tags

Above the Law (blog), Bryan Garner, David Lat, Judge Richard Posner, Justice Scalia, Legal Analysis, Legal Writing, Professor Amar, Statutory Interpretation

Judge Posner on Statutory Interpretation: This Is How We Do It, by David Lat, Above The Law Blog

http://tinyurl.com/nba842o

[J]udge Richard Posner of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit delivered the Madison Lecture on Judicial Engagement at Columbia Law School. The lecture series, sponsored by the CLS chapter of the Federalist Society, brings distinguished jurists to Columbia to discuss topics relevant to the federal judiciary and the administration of justice.

(Perhaps we should put ‘at’ Columbia Law in quotation marks; Judge Posner actually appeared via video conference. That shouldn’t surprise, coming from a judge who lists The Matrix as one of his favorite films.)

In his talk, entitled ’How I Interpret Statutes and the Constitution,’ Judge Posner was his usual candid self. He offered commentary on two recent books about statutory and constitutional interpretation — books that he’s not a fan of.

Yes, readers. There will be benchslaps….

Share this:

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

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

22 Sunday Jun 2014

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

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

Tags

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

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

http://tinyurl.com/mr5g4x8

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

Share this:

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

Student Guide to Footnotes and Citations in Scholarly Writing.

22 Sunday Jun 2014

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

≈ Comments Off on Student Guide to Footnotes and Citations in Scholarly Writing.

Tags

Citations, Footnotes, Law Review Articles, Legal Writing Prof Blog, Mark E. Wojcik, Professor William Mock, SSRN

When a Rose Isn’t ‘Arose’ Isn’t Arroz: A Student Guide to Footnoting for Informational Clarity and Scholarly Discourse, by Mark E. Wojcik, Legal Writing Prof Blog

http://tinyurl.com/nm4p2x6

Professor William Mock has authored an article meant to help students cite more sensibly. The article begins with welcome advice: ‘Not every proposition in a law review articles requires citation, nor does every footnote require cited authority.’ (And in case you’re worried already, that sentence has two footnotes in the orginal!).

It is the kind of article that should be given to incoming law journal editorial boards to help student editors (and research assistants) understand the distinctions among different types of footnotes.

You can share this link for students to download a copy of the paper from SSRN.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1019891

(With students, we recommend giving the link rather than the document itself so that students will also learn how to do research on SSRN–a source that gives them information not found on Westlaw or Lexis or Bloomberg).

If law journals adopt more sensible rules for citations rather than strict mathematical formulas (such as 1.8 pages of footnotes for each page of text), law reviews have a chance to increase their readability and usefulness to readers.

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...

Controlling Crowded Sentences. Shorter Is Not Always Better?

22 Sunday Jun 2014

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

≈ Comments Off on Controlling Crowded Sentences. Shorter Is Not Always Better?

Tags

Controlling Crowded Sentences, Editing, George Gopen, Judith D. Fischer, Legal Writing Prof, Legal Writing Prof Blog

Controlling Crowded Sentences, by Judith D. Fischer, Legal Writing Prof, Legal Writing Prof Blog

http://tinyurl.com/kacsecz

In his recent article Controlling Crowded Sentences, rhetorician George Gopen shows how to make Gopen the most of stress positions. He starts with a sample thirty-six word sentence and then revises it six different ways. Some revisions are a bit longer than the original, but Gopen emphasizes that ‘I do not hold with those who advise ‘to make it better, make it shorter.’ Each revision has a different purpose: one places a person in a subordinate role, and another builds empathy for her. The article appeared in the spring 2014 issue of Litigation.

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...

Changes and Trends in Paralegal Education.

21 Saturday Jun 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Education, Legal Technology, Legal Writing, Paralegals/Legal Assistants

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

AAfPE, Distance Learning, E-Discovery, Legal Technology, Legal Writing, Litigation Support, Paralegal, Paralegal educators, Paralegal Programs, Sally A. Kane, Technology Training

Take Your Seats, by Sally A. Kane, J.D., Paralegal Today

 http://paralegaltoday.com/issue_archive/features/feature1_jf09.htm

A changing economic climate, emerging technologies and a global legal market have transformed the legal industry. In response to evolving market demands, paralegal educators and law firm managers are adapting school programs, continuing legal education courses and training policies to better prepare today’s paralegals for success in the workforce and in their careers.

‘Paralegal roles are expanding,’ said Charles Volkert, Esq., executive director of Robert Half Legal, a national legal staffing service based in  Menlo Park, Calif. ‘Law firms look for multiple skill sets and a wide variety of experience as they expand globally.’

What skills sets are hot in today’s paralegal market? Paralegal educators, managers and recruiters across the country agree that a combination of strong technology, writing and communication skills, and hands-on experience will help paralegals excel in the workplace. Other hot trends in paralegal education and CLE include distance learning and a greater demand for certain paralegal specialties. . . .

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 Common Law Means and Why You Should Know.

19 Thursday Jun 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Legal Writing

≈ Comments Off on What the Common Law Means and Why You Should Know.

Tags

American Legal System, Civil Law, Common Law, English Common Law, School of Law (Boalt Hall), The Robbins Collection, University of California at Berkley

The Common Law and Civil Law Traditions, from The Robbins Collection, School of Law (Boalt Hall), University of California at Berkley

https://www.law.berkeley.edu/library/robbins/CommonLawCivilLawTraditions.html

Speaking only for myself as a paralegal, I didn’t get a course on the common law and it’s origins in paralegal school. I was fortunate enough to audit the Legal History course at a nearby law school taught my then boss, the Hon. Marian P. Opala, while he was a Justice at the Oklahoma Supreme Court. I remember being grateful that I did not have to complete the tough major exercise for the course! If you have an interest in researching, writing, and reading the law, you will enjoy it more with an understanding of common law, where it came from, how it evolved, and what it means today. Happy reading! -CCE

Most nations today follow one of two major legal traditions: common law or civil law. The common law tradition emerged in England during the Middle Ages and was applied within British colonies across continents. The civil law tradition developed in continental Europe at the same time and was applied in the colonies of European imperial powers such as Spain and Portugal. Civil law was also adopted in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries by countries formerly possessing distinctive legal traditions, such as Russia and Japan, that sought to reform their legal systems in order to gain economic and political power comparable to that of Western European nation-states.

To an American familiar with the terminology and process of our legal system, which is based on English common law, civil law systems can be unfamiliar and confusing. Even though England had many profound cultural ties to the rest of Europe in the Middle Ages, its legal tradition developed differently from that of the continent for a number of historical reasons, and one of the most fundamental ways in which they diverged was in the establishment of judicial decisions as the basis of common law and legislative decisions as the basis of civil law. Before looking at the history, let’s examine briefly what this means. . . .

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...

Handouts From The Writing Center.

18 Wednesday Jun 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Citations, Footnotes, Legal Writing, Plagiarism, Plain Language, Proofreading, Quotations, Readability, Spell Checking

≈ Comments Off on Handouts From The Writing Center.

Tags

Grammar & Punctuation, Handouts, Legal Writing, The Writing Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Writing, Writing Guide

Handouts, The Writing Center, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

http://writingcenter.unc.edu/handouts/

Not necessarily for legal writers, but downright handy nonetheless. The folks who put this together are kind enough to share this valuable resource, and welcome your ideas and suggestions. At the bottom of the post’s page, you will find contact information for contributions. Please give back if you can as thanks for this thoughtful gift. -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...

Proofreaders’ Marks and More.

18 Wednesday Jun 2014

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

≈ Comments Off on Proofreaders’ Marks and More.

Tags

Legal Writing, Merriam-Webster, Proofreaders' Marks, Writing

Proofreaders’ Marks, by Merriam-Webster Online Chicago Manual of Style Online

http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/help-tools/proofreading-marks.html

Unfortunately, the former Merriam Webster Online link to this information no longer works. No worries. There are plenty of other places to find proofreading marks. These are commonly used when editing any type of document in a law office. If you are not familiar with them, I suggest that you print the list for easy reference.

Another excellent website that provides an abundant amount of information, including proofreading marks, grammar and punctuation, dictionaries, and other reference resources is RefDesk.com (https://www.refdesk.com).

If you decide that neither of these are your cup of tea, just search “proofreader marks” with your favorite search engine. -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...

Apologizing For Bad Customer Service? Choose Your Words Carefully.

15 Sunday Jun 2014

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

≈ Comments Off on Apologizing For Bad Customer Service? Choose Your Words Carefully.

Tags

Advanced Legal Writing & Editing, Apology, Customer Service, Plain English, Roy Jacobsen, Southwest Airlines, Writing Clear and Simple Blog

Need To Apologize? Try Plain English, by Roy Jacobsen,  Writing, Clear and Simple Blog

http://tinyurl.com/pweoxkv

There are good ways and bad ways to address a customer service fiasco. Courtesy of Southwest Airlines, here’s one of the bad ways:

‘We are working directly with the family after sincerely apologizing and issuing a full refund for their less-than-positive travel experience,’ Southwest spokesman Brad Hawkins said Sunday night. ‘We certainly will take away any potential learnings from this experience in our constant evaluation of how to provide the best possible customer service, which is second only to the safety of every passenger.’

Setting aside the situation that led this (the short version: Chris and Heather Dainiak, parents of a terminally ill boy, were told their son could not fly sitting in his protective chair, even though he had used it on another Southwest flight just days earlier), I have to ask: what makes people talk this way? . . . .

Share this:

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

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

15 Sunday Jun 2014

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

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

Tags

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

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

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

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

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

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

Share this:

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

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

15 Sunday Jun 2014

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

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

Tags

Brief Writing, BriefRight, Kirby Griffis, Legal Writing

TrialRight Again, by Kirby Griffis, BriefRight

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

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

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

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

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

Share this:

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

Are Acronyms Effective or Alphabet Soup?

15 Sunday Jun 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Acronyms, Closing Argument, Cross-Examination, Direct Examination, Jury Persuasion, Legal Writing, Making Objections, Opening Argument, Oral Argument, Trial Tips and Techniques, Voir Dire

≈ Comments Off on Are Acronyms Effective or Alphabet Soup?

Tags

Abbreviations, Acronyms, Dr. Ken Broda-Bahm, Jury Persuasion, Legal Writing, Persuasive Litigators Blog, Trial Tips & Techniques

DUA: Don’t Use Acronyms, by Dr. Ken Broda-Bahm, Persuasive Litigators Blog

http://tinyurl.com/p66tcgk

I’m monitoring a criminal trial this week, and at the end of opening statements, the judge looked at the jury and said, ‘Okay, both sides have been referring to ‘AUSAs’ — they know what that means and I know what that means, but I’m guessing that you don’t know that that means?” Head nods from the jury. ‘It means ‘Assistant U.S. Attorney,’ continued the judge, “so please fill that in wherever you hear it.” Good solution? Better than nothing. But it would have been best if both sides would have simply used the title instead of abbreviating it. The tiny amount of additional time it takes to say ‘Assistant U.S. Attorney’ rather than ‘USA’ is well worth it in terms of clarity and understanding.

But some attorneys, experts, and other witnesses continue to love the economy of the acronym. But particularly in spoken communication, and particularly in front of a jury, that economy comes at a cost: meaning lost in translation and increased cognitive workload even when it is translated. Practical persuaders before a lay audience are well advised to avoid acronyms almost entirely. Okay, I say almost entirely — there are some exceptions (and besides ‘Generally Avoid Acronyms’ would have been ‘GAA.’) The few acronyms that ought to still be used are those that have such widespread familiarity that they almost become words in their own right: USA, CNN, or ASAP. In all other cases where the acronyms don’t benefit from automatic translation, the litigator is best off choosing the full expression and not the acronym. This post takes a look at a few reasons, implications, and replacements for trial persuaders looking to lose the alphabet soup of acronyms. . . .

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...

Candy For Writers! Grammar Girl’s Editing Checklist.

14 Saturday Jun 2014

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

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

Editing, Grammar, Grammar Girl, Legal Writing, Mignon Fogary, Punctuation, Spellchecking, Writing

Grammar Girl’s Editing Checklist, Mignon Fogary, Grammar Girl Blog

http://tinyurl.com/qy3efup

At the end of a recent writing webcast, we distributed a Grammar Girl editing checklist that turned out to be so popular we decided to make it widely available. Print out the checklist and keep it on your desk as a handy reference to use when you’re editing.

Share this:

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

Best Brief Writing Checklist.

08 Sunday Jun 2014

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

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

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

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

 http://tinyurl.com/lsrzxjy

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

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

Make this your brief writing checklist. -CCE

Share this:

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

8th Circuit Motions of Limine and Offers of Proof.

07 Saturday Jun 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Appellate Law, Evidence, Legal Analysis, Legal Writing, Motions, Motions in Limine, Rule 103

≈ Comments Off on 8th Circuit Motions of Limine and Offers of Proof.

Tags

Eighth Circuit, Evidence, EvidenceProf Blog, Federal Rules of Evidence, Legal Writing, Motion in Limine, Offer of Proof, Rule 103

Renewal Notice: 8th Circuit Finds No Offer of Proof Needed Based on Prior Definitive Ruling, by Colin Miller, Evidence ProfBlogger, EvidenceProf Blog

http://tinyurl.com/pk2vzlt

As amended in 2000, Federal Rule of Evidence 103(b) reads as follows:

(b) Not Needing to Renew an Objection or Offer of Proof. Once the court rules definitively on the record — either before or at trial — a party need not renew an objection or offer of proof to preserve a claim of error for appeal.

So, assume that a party files a motion in limine seeking to exclude evidence before trial. If the judge makes a definitive ruling deeming the subject evidence inadmissible, does the proponent need to make an offer of proof at trial? In Smith v. Hy–Vee, 622 F.3d 904 (8th Cir.2010), the Eighth Circuit answered this question in the affirmaive. In Lawrey v. Good Samaritan Hosp., 2014 WL 2489076 (8th Cir. 2014), however, the same court answered the question in the negative. . . .

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...

“Must Have” Plain Language Tips and Tools.

04 Wednesday Jun 2014

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

≈ Comments Off on “Must Have” Plain Language Tips and Tools.

Tags

Dictionary, Grammar, Plain English, Plain Language, Punctuation, Style guide

Tips and Tools, PlainLanguage.gov

http://www.plainlanguage.gov/howto/index.cfm

Take a good look. Links to Quick Reference Tips, Word Suggestions, Dictionaries, Thesauruses, Style Guides, and Grammar Sites. -CCE

Share this:

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

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

04 Wednesday Jun 2014

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

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

Tags

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

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

http://tinyurl.com/6zxgxy8

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

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

If only lawyers had the same rule.

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

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

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

Share this:

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

The ITS Style Guide – Put This One In Your Legal Writing Toolbox.

02 Monday Jun 2014

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

≈ Comments Off on The ITS Style Guide – Put This One In Your Legal Writing Toolbox.

Tags

Grammar, ITS Style Guide, Legal Writing, Punctuation, The University of Texas at Austin, Writing, Writing Guide, Writing Style

ITS Style Guide, The University of Texas at Austin

http://www.utexas.edu/its/style/written/misused.php

Easy Peasy. Definitely worth a bookmark. -CCE

The ITS Style Guide is an online reference for the Information Technology Services (ITS) department at The University of Texas at Austin. It promotes consistency in ITS publications with a focus on technical communications. The Guide covers correct writing styles, word usage, capitalization, punctuation, and other issues that arise in written communications.

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 Secret Of How To Ask For What You Want.

31 Saturday May 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Closing Argument, Cross-Examination, Direct Examination, Jury Persuasion, Legal Argument, Legal Writing, Opening Argument, Oral Argument, Trial Tips and Techniques, Voir Dire

≈ Comments Off on The Secret Of How To Ask For What You Want.

Tags

Closing Argument, Elliott Wilcox, Legal Writing, Opening Argument, Trial Theater Blog, Trial Tips & Techniques

Ask For What You Want, posted by Elliott Wilcox, Trial Theater Blog

http://tinyurl.com/kkrtqwo

Mr. Wilcox’s suggestions on how to verbally ask for what you want can also be translated into a persuasive legal writing technique. The logic works either way. -CCE

How many times a day do you ask judges, clients, or co-workers to do something or to give you something? During any given week, you probably make hundreds, perhaps even thousands, of requests. You ask your co-worker to work on a project, you ask your assistant to handle a client issue, you ask your kids to help with the dishes. . . . The number of requests that you make each week is staggering. But how many of those requests are actually granted? Have you ever had a problem with someone not doing not what you asked?

Why?  You’re a lawyer. Shouldn’t you be the master of persuasion who can get what you want, when you want it, and how you want it, every single time?

Unless your name is ‘Svengali the Master Manipulator,’ chances are that many of your requests are not being granted, or at least not being carried out exactly the way you’d like to see them handled.  But it’s not because your requests are falling on deaf ears.  In fact, your listeners are probably hearing exactly what you’re saying.  The problem is that you’re asking for the wrong thing. . . .

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