Category Archives: Plain Language

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

15 Sunday Jun 2014

Posted by 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

, , , ,

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. . . .

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

15 Sunday Jun 2014

Posted by 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

, , ,

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. . . .

Best Brief Writing Checklist.

08 Sunday Jun 2014

Posted by 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

, , , , ,

“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

“Must Have” Plain Language Tips and Tools.

04 Wednesday Jun 2014

Posted by in Legal Writing, Plain Language, References

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

Tags

, , , , ,

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

Plain Language Jury Instructions.

31 Saturday May 2014

Posted by in Jury Instructions, Legal Writing, Legalese, Plain Language

≈ Comments Off on Plain Language Jury Instructions.

Tags

, ,

Plain Language and Jury Instructions, PlainLanguage.gov

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

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

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

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

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

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