Category Archives: Persuasive Writing

What Judges Want.

16 Saturday Sep 2017

Posted by in Bad Legal Writing, Legal Argument, Legal Writing, Persuasive Writing, Readability

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

Judges Speak Out Behind Closed Doors: How Your Briefs Might Bug Them, and How You Can Make Them Smile Instead, by Ross Guberman, Legal Writing Pro (with hat tip to William P. Statsky)

https://www.legalwritingpro.com/blog/judges-speak-out/

Ross Guberman is one of my favorite legal writing experts. Mr. Guberman conducted an anonymous and broad survey of judges’ likes and dislikes on legal writing. If you are serious about winning, then you care whether your judge not only reads and understands what you write, but also likes it. -CCE

Advertisements

Former FBI Director Comey Acknowledged As Legal Writing Star.

13 Tuesday Jun 2017

Posted by in Editing, Legal Writing, Persuasive Writing, Plain Language, Readability

≈ Comments Off on Former FBI Director Comey Acknowledged As Legal Writing Star.

Why Does Comey Get an “A” in Legal Writing for His Written Testimony? by Megan E. Boyd, Lady (Legal) Writer Blog

http://ladylegalwriter.blogspot.com/2017/06/why-does-comey-get-a-in-legal-writing.html

Guest post writer, Kirsten Davis, J.D., Ph.D., and Megan Boyd, the author of the Lady (Legal) Writer Blog, know great legal writing when they see it. Last Thursday, when appearing before the Intelligence Committee, Idaho Senator James Risch described former FBI Director James Comey’s written testimony as “clear,” “concise,” and “as good as it gets.”  You don’t hear that every day. So, what made Comey’s writing deserve such high praise? Enjoy this lesson on excellent legal writing. -CCE

Use Plain English Rather Than Medical Jargon.

12 Wednesday Apr 2017

Posted by in Legal Writing, Persuasive Writing, Plain Language, Trial Tips and Techniques

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

Tags

, , , ,

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

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

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

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

04 Tuesday Apr 2017

Posted by in 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, Appellate Law, Civil Rights, Legal Analysis, Legal Writing, Persuasive Writing, Second Amendment

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

Tags

, , , ,

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

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

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

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

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

Continue reading →

Tips on Writing Persuasive Propositions.

02 Thursday Mar 2017

Posted by in Brief Writing, Legal Writing, Persuasive Writing, Propositions and Headings

≈ Comments Off on Tips on Writing Persuasive Propositions.

Tags

, , , , , ,

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

http://bit.ly/2ljxJbg

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

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

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

Legal Writing Myths

11 Saturday Feb 2017

Posted by in Brief Writing, Citations, Editing, Legal Argument, Legal Writing, Persuasive Writing, Plain Language

≈ Comments Off on Legal Writing Myths

Tags

, , ,

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

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

 

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

Make Legal Writing Resolutions for 2017.

03 Tuesday Jan 2017

Posted by in Editing, Grammar, Legal Writing, Persuasive Writing, Readability

≈ Comments Off on Make Legal Writing Resolutions for 2017.

Tags

, ,

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

http://bit.ly/2hK5QTb

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

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

Plain English Legal Writing – Proof Positive That It Works.

12 Monday Dec 2016

Posted by in Bad Legal Writing, Editing, Judges, Legal Argument, Legal Writing, Legalese, Persuasive Writing, Plain Language, Readability

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

Tags

, , ,

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

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

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

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

Continue reading →

Dump This Common Legal Writing Phrase!

09 Sunday Oct 2016

Posted by in Bad Legal Writing, Brief Writing, Legal Analysis, Legal Argument, Legal Writing, Persuasive Writing

≈ Comments Off on Dump This Common Legal Writing Phrase!

Tags

, , ,

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

http://bit.ly/2d5b89q

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

What’s Wrong With Using “And/Or”?

06 Thursday Oct 2016

Posted by in Grammar, Legal Writing, Persuasive Writing

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

Tags

, , ,

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

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

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

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

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

Continue reading →

Bad Brief!

28 Thursday Jul 2016

Posted by in Bad Legal Writing, Brief Writing, Judges, Legal Analysis, Legal Argument, Legal Writing, Persuasive Writing, Readability

≈ Comments Off on Bad Brief!

Tags

, , , , ,

Effective Brief Writing Despite High Volume Practice: Ten Misconceptions that Result in Bad Briefs, by Sarah E. Ricks, Rutgers School of Law – Camden, and Jane L. Istvan, City of Philadelphia Law Department, 38 U. Tol. L. Rev. 1113, SSRN

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=996907

Excellent paper on the repeated mistakes judges and their staff see in briefs.

In a busy law practice, we may not always have the luxury of researching and editing as thoroughly as we may like when writing a brief. We are so familiar with our case that we often forget the perspective of our reader. Imagine sitting all day in trial immersed in one area of law, and then switching gears afterwards to read and absorb a brief in a completely different type of law.

This paper reminds us how to write persuasively for the court, even when under pressure to meet deadlines. -CCE

Tell Your Client’s Story With A Good Narrative.

19 Sunday Jun 2016

Posted by in Contract Law, Legal Argument, Legal Writing, Persuasive Writing

≈ Comments Off on Tell Your Client’s Story With A Good Narrative.

Tags

, , , , , ,

Using Narrative in Transactional Documents, by Louis J. Sirico, Jr., Legal Skills Prof Blog

http://bit.ly/26buQ9Y

Susan Chesler and Karen Sneddon have written a very interesting article on including narrative in transactional documents. Once Upon a Transaction: Narrative Techniques and Drafting, 68 Oklahoma Law Review No. 2 (2016).

Here is the introduction:  A granddaughter joins the family business as a partner. An entrepreneur licenses his newest product. Two parties decide to settle a dispute. A charitable idea materializes as a private foundation. A parent’s belief in the power of education is perpetuated by a trust agreement. Each of these events forms a narrative. A transaction is more than the scratch of pens across signature pages or the click of keys to email an executed document. A transaction is itself a story.

Continue reading →

What’s It Like In Your Judge’s Shoes?

03 Friday Jun 2016

Posted by in Brief Writing, Legal Argument, Legal Writing, Legalese, Persuasive Writing, Readability

≈ Comments Off on What’s It Like In Your Judge’s Shoes?

Tags

, , , ,

Advice on Writing to Persuade the Court, by Louis J. Sirico, Jr., Legal Skills Prof Blog (with hat tip to William P. Statsky)

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/legal_skills/2016/06/advice-on-writing-to-persuade-the-court.html

In her article, Standing in the Judge’s Shoes: Exploring Techniques to Help Legal Writers More Fully Address the Needs of Their Audience, Sherri Lee Keene argues that lawyers writing as advocates need to place themselves in the shoes of the judges whom they seek to persuade. Of course, this is not new advice. What is helpful here is her advice on how to do it.

Continue reading →

Just Really Good Legal Writing.

21 Saturday May 2016

Posted by in Bad Legal Writing, Editing, Grammar, Legal Writing, Legalese, Persuasive Writing, Punctuation, Readability

≈ Comments Off on Just Really Good Legal Writing.

Tags

, , , , ,

How To Write Good Legal Stuff, by Eugene Volokh and J. Alexander Tanford, Maurer School of Law© 2001, 2009

http://law.indiana.edu/instruction/tanford/web/reference/how2writegood.pdf

This is a guide to good legal writing. Good writing consists of avoiding common clunkers and using simpler replacements. The replacements aren’t always perfect synonyms but 90% of the time they’re better than the original. Warning: Some changes also require grammatical twiddling of other parts of the sentence. This is not a guide to proper high English usage. We don’t give two hoots whether you dangle participles, split infinitives or end sentences with prepositions. We care that you can write clearly.

Continue reading →

Another Legal Writing Honey Pot

08 Sunday May 2016

Posted by in Appellate Writing, Legal Argument, Legal Writing, Legalese, Persuasive Writing, Plain Language

≈ Comments Off on Another Legal Writing Honey Pot

Tags

, , ,

Transcripts of Bryan Garner’s Transcripts With Supreme Court Justices On Legal Writing And Advocacy, THE SCRIBES JOURNAL OF LEGAL WRITING©

http://legaltimes.typepad.com/files/garner-transcripts-1.pdf

If you had to pick just one edition of The Scribes Journal of Legal Writing, which would be an incredibly hard thing to do, this is certainly one I would strongly recommend. Bryan Garner’s interviews with Supreme Court Justices on legal writing! Does it get any better than this? If you are a legal writing aficionado, or even if you’re not, you’ll appreciate the wisdom here. -CCE  

Brief Writing – The Summary of the Argument.

13 Sunday Mar 2016

Posted by in Bad Legal Writing, Brief Writing, Legal Analysis, Legal Argument, Legal Writing, Persuasive Writing, Summary of the Argument

≈ Comments Off on Brief Writing – The Summary of the Argument.

Tags

, , , ,

Drafting the Summary of Argument, by Louis J. Sirico, Jr., Legal Skills Prof Blog

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/legal_skills/2016/03/drafting-the-summary-of-argument.html

Although not all courts require a “Summary of the Argument” in major briefs, you might consider adding one nonetheless. It is the heart of your brief. It concisely sums up your argument – no fluff allowed.

Some busy judges will read your Table of Contents, Table of Authorities, the Summary of the Argument, and nothing else. It is why the Summary of the Argument is at the beginning of a brief, and why it should to get right to the point and stay there.

This is a particularly interesting article on writing by Judith Fischer, and well worth your time regardless of your brief writing skills. -CCE

[B]ecause the summary of the argument appears near the beginning of a brief, it allows the legal advocate to take advantage of both framing and priming to begin to convince the Court. Thus, it’s a mistake for an advocate to treat the section as an afterthought. . . .

Continue reading →

Does Legalese Have A Legitimate Purpose?

13 Saturday Feb 2016

Posted by in Legal Writing, Legalese, Persuasive Writing, Plain Language, Readability

≈ Comments Off on Does Legalese Have A Legitimate Purpose?

Tags

, , , ,

Lawyers, Stop Writing (and Saying) These Things Immediately, by Brendan Kenny, Lawyerist Blog© 2007–2016

http://bit.ly/1PJPILK

Many lawyers are tired of hearing about legalese, and many still haven’t embraced plain language in their own legal writing and speaking. This post won’t try to change their minds. If Bryan Garner’s life work can’t convince lawyers, how can I?

But there is another issue often lost in the plain-language wars: where did all these legalese words come from? The perception on both sides seems to be these words and phrases once served a purpose, but don’t anymore. But what if we discovered that they never served any purpose? . . . .

Continue reading →

Plain Language = Good Writing.

28 Saturday Nov 2015

Posted by in Bad Legal Writing, Grammar, Legal Writing, Persuasive Writing, Plain Language, Proofreading, Readability

≈ Comments Off on Plain Language = Good Writing.

Tags

, , ,

The Pros Know: Plain Language Is Just Good Writing, by Mark Cooney, 94 Mich. B.J. 54 (Sept. 2015) (with hat tip to William P. Statsky!)

http://www.michbar.org/file/barjournal/article/documents/pdf4article2701.pdf

Is plain language foreign to ‘real’ writers? To the pros, I mean? Would professional writers, editors, and literary agents outside our field scoff at the plain style that this column has long endorsed? Would plain English draw ridicule in those quarters? Too childish? Dumbed down? Illiterate? And would readers of literate magazines, technical journals, or fiction balk at the simplicity, the directness?

This is an easy one: no—on all counts. . . .

Continue reading →

4 Writing Tips For Persuasive Briefs.

29 Tuesday Sep 2015

Posted by in Bad Legal Writing, Brief Writing, Editing, Legal Argument, Legal Writing, Persuasive Writing, Readability

≈ Comments Off on 4 Writing Tips For Persuasive Briefs.

Tags

, , , , ,

4 Edits I’ve Never Made, by Mark Herrmann, Lawyerists Blog (with hat tip to Raymond Ward!)

http://abovethelaw.com/2015/09/4-edits-i-have-never-made/

I have revised an awful lot of briefs in my life.

I clerked for a year; worked as a litigation associate at a small firm for five years; worked first as an associate (for three years) and then as a litigation partner (for 17 years) at one of the world’s largest firms; and have now served as the head of litigation at a Fortune 250 firm for the last five years.

I repeat: I have revised an awful lot of briefs in my life.

There’s been a world of variety in the substance of briefs that I’ve revised. Labor law, First Amendment cases, commercial disputes, product liability cases, tax spats, securities fraud, insurance and reinsurance matters, IP cases; you name it.

But there’s been almost no variety in the revisions that I’ve made to briefs.

As I’ve ranted before, I’ve spent my decades generally making all the same changes to draft briefs.

So I’m not going to list here the usual edits that briefs need. I’m going to do the opposite: What edits have I never made to a brief over the course of three decades practicing law? . . . .

Continue reading →

Supreme Court Writing Analysis – Whose Briefs Win and Why.

22 Saturday Aug 2015

Posted by in Appellate Law, Appellate Writing, Brief Writing, Editing, Grammar, Legal Analysis, Legal Argument, Legal Writing, Persuasive Writing, Readability, United States Supreme Court

≈ Comments Off on Supreme Court Writing Analysis – Whose Briefs Win and Why.

Tags

, , , , ,

Who Wins in the Supreme Court? An Examination of Attorney and Law Firm Influence, by Alan Feldman, University of Southern California, Political Science, SSRN.com (Date posted: August 18, 2015 ; Last revised: August 21, 2015)

http://tinyurl.com/q48ywgq

This paper is a detailed analysis of what type of legal writing and briefs from 1946 through 2013 have been the most influential  with the United States Supreme Court and the lawyers who write them. Interestingly, lawyers who write short sentences in the active voice and who use fewer words than the majority of brief writers are the most successful. It is a fascinating read, and strongly recommended. -CCE

Use “The Streisand Effect” To Hit The Perfect Legal Writing Chord.

15 Saturday Aug 2015

Posted by in Civil Rights, First Amendment, Legal Argument, Legal Writing, Persuasive Writing

≈ Comments Off on Use “The Streisand Effect” To Hit The Perfect Legal Writing Chord.

Tags

, , , , , ,

Peabody Energy Tries To Strike Song Lyrics From Complaint: Welcome To The Streisand Effect, by Elie Mystal, Breaking Energy Blog (with hat tip to Raymond Ward!)

http://tinyurl.com/ozm4j5l

Kudos to the lawyers who came up with this legal writing strategy. A couple sued Peabody Energy and alleged a civil rights violation. The police arrested the couple for holding up a banner during Peabody’s shareholder’s meeting.

The Complaint filed against Peabody Energy included lyrics to a song called “Paradise,” by John Prine. Who knows how the plaintiff’s counsel found it. The lyrics are a perfect choice.

The song is about coal mining exploitation by a company. You guessed it – the company’s name is Peabody. The lyrics about the big, bad coal company abusing the rights of common people strike the right chord.

Peabody’s reaction was understandable, but a costly mistake. Peabody filed a Motion to Strike. Strike what? The song lyrics – in a lawsuit about freedom of speech. To be kind, perhaps Peabody’s counsel did not think that one through.

The plaintiff’s response is classic and brilliant legal writing strategy. -CCE