11 Friday Sep 2015
Posted in Bad Legal Writing, Contract Law, Legal Writing, Plain Language, Readability
≈ Comments Off on Classic Legal Writing Never Goes Out Of Style.
30 Years of the Michigan Bar Journal’s “Plain Language” Column, by Ken Adams, Adams on Contract Drafting
http://www.adamsdrafting.com/30-years-of-the-michigan-bar-journals-plain-language-column/
The Michigan Bar Journal’s ‘Plain Language’ column recently celebrated its thirtieth year. Joe Kimble, its longtime editor, wrote this piece marking the event. . . .
22 Saturday Aug 2015
Posted 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
Appellate Briefs, Legal Analysis, Legal Writing, Persuasive Legal Writing, Plain English, U.S. Supreme Court
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)
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
21 Tuesday Jul 2015
Posted in Brief Writing, Editing, Legal Argument, Legal Writing, Readability
≈ Comments Off on Ever Wanted To Know How To Write Like Chief Justice John Roberts?
Five Ways to Write Like John Roberts, by Ross Guberman, Legal writing tips for attorneys and judges
http://legalwritingpro.com/blog/five-ways-to-write-like-john-roberts/#comment-56
What I really like about this post is how it about using “show, don’t tell.” It is one of the most under-used persuasive writing tools, which I do not understand. When used correctly, you can hit it out of the park. -CCE
When Chief Justice John Roberts was a lawyer, he once wrote that determining the ‘best’ available technology for controlling air pollution is like asking people to pick the ‘best’ car: . . . .
20 Monday Jul 2015
Posted in Acronyms, Bad Legal Writing, Brief Writing, District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals, Legal Writing, Readability, Style Manuals
≈ Comments Off on Judge’s Benchslap Orders Parties To Rewrite Their Acronym-Loaded Briefs.
Alphabet Attack, by Ross Guberman, Legal Writing Tips for Attorneys and Judges
http://legalwritingpro.com/blog/alphabet-attack/
I wonder how many judges have wanted to do this? -CCE
It wouldn’t be spring in America without some federal judges publicly criticizing attorneys in a genre now known as ‘benchslap.’
The offended court this time: the D.C. Circuit. The court’s target: acronyms in briefs filed in a complex telecom dispute. The benchslap: ‘It is ordered . . . that the parties submit new briefs that eliminate uncommon acronyms used in their previously filed final briefs.’ The court even cited its own practice handbook for good measure: ‘[i]n briefs the use of acronyms other that those that are widely known should be avoided.’ . . .
08 Wednesday Jul 2015
Posted in Brief Writing, Editing, Fonts, Jury Instructions, Legal Writing, Legalese, Precedent, Readability
≈ Comments Off on Plain Language Honey Pot.
Legal Examples, PlainLanguage.gov
http://www.plainlanguage.gov/examples/legal/
I have noticed that posts here on legal writing, legalese, and plain language are always popular. Here is a treat for you plain language lovers – a mixed bag of excellent plain language examples of legal writing. They include Pennsylvania’s statute requiring plain language for contracts, California’s plain language jury instructions, Martin Cutt’s classic, Lucid Law, and my personal favorites – two fantastic articles by Judge Mark P. Painter.
Once you click on this link and go to the website, you will see buttons that will take you to other plain language examples, resources, and tips. Enjoy! -CCE
04 Saturday Jul 2015
Posted in Legal Argument, Plain Language, Readability
≈ Comments Off on Premises Considered – Legalese Or The Way It Should Be Done?
Wherefore Premises Considered? by Wayne Scheiss, Legal Writing Net Blog
http://www.utexas.edu/law/faculty/wschiess/legalwriting/2005/03/wherefore-premises-considered
When I worked as a legal secretary, I typed the archaic phrase “premises considered” so many times in pleadings, orders, brief, and all types of legal documents. No one ever explained what it meant, but the author was certainly upset if it was omitted. The reason for insisting that this phrase be added? It made the document sound more legal.
They were so used to seeing this phrase, although they did not know its meaning, that it simply did not look right without it. This is reason given by most followers of legalese. They cannot explain what it means – it just looks wrong without it. Is that really a sufficient reason to include it? -CCE
Is it okay to eliminate phrases like WHEREFORE PREMISES CONSIDERED and other such verbiage from the prayer in a complaint? And what is the proper substitute?
Yes, it is okay to eliminate these words. In fact, I highly recommend it. . . .
13 Saturday Jun 2015
Posted in Apple, Brief Writing, Citations, E-Briefs, E-Briefs, E-Filing, Footnotes, iPad, Laptop, Legal Technology, Legal Writing, Mac, Microsoft Office, PC Computers, Readability, Tablets
≈ Comments Off on Excellent Argument About Technology and Citation Placement.
Tags
Brian Garner, Brief Writing, Citing Legally Blog, E-Briefs, E-Filing, Legal Citations, Legal Technology, Legal Writing, Peter Martin
If the Judge Will Be Reading My Brief on a Screen, Where Should I Place My Citations? by Peter Martin, Jane M.G. Foster Professor of Law, Emeritus, Cornell Law School, Citing Legally Blog
http://citeblog.access-to-law.com/?p=149
As pointed out in this article, more courts require e-filing and are using tablets and other technology to read what you file. If you do not use technology, then you do not know how your document appears on the screen. It is quite different than reading something on a printed page.
So what to do? Keep writing as you always have and ignore changes brought about by technology or adjust? -CCE
A. Introduction
In a prior post I explored how the transformation of case law to linked electronic data undercut Brian Garner’s longstanding argument that judges should place their citations in footnotes. As that post promised, I’ll now turn to Garner’s position as it applies to writing that lawyers prepare for judicial readers. . . .
16 Saturday May 2015
Posted in Editing, Legal Writing, Readability
≈ Comments Off on The Rule of Short.
Manage Your Sentence Length, by Wayne Scheiss, Legible Blog from Legalwriting.net
http://sites.utexas.edu/legalwriting/2015/04/29/manage-your-sentence-length-2/
“The shorter the sentence, the easier it is to understand.” Practical Legal Writing for Legal Assistants. -CCE
What’s a good average sentence length for legal writing?
I once asked a group of lawyers at a CLE seminar that question. ‘Thirteen words,’ one lawyer volunteered. ‘Seven,’ said another. Wow. Writing about legal matters with an average of seven words per sentence isn’t realistic, is it? That means for every sentence of ten words, you’ve got to write one of four words to bring the average to seven. That would be tough.
But the instinct is right. Steven Stark, author of Writing to Win, says the more complex the material, the shorter the sentences should be. So what’s a more realistic goal? The experts say between 20 and 25 words:
- below 25—Wydick in Plain English for Lawyers
- about 22—Enquist & Oates in Just Writing: Grammar, Punctuation, and Style for the Legal Writer
- about 20—Garner in Legal Writing in Plain EnglishHow do you know your average sentence length?
You can program Microsoft Word to tell you. . . .
09 Saturday May 2015
Posted in Bad Legal Writing, Editing, Legal Argument, Legal Writing, Readability
≈ Comments Off on Excellent Editing Tips From Jonathan Van Patton.
Tags
Editing, Jonathan Van Patten, Legal Skills Prof Blog, Legal Writing, Louis J. Sirico Jr., Persuasive Writing, South Dakota Law Review, William P. Statsky
“On Editing,” by Louis J. Sirico, Jr., Legal Skills Prof Blog (with hat tip to William P. Statsky)
http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/legal_skills/2015/05/on-editing.html
Excellent article on editing! Editing is no easy task. You have to practice to do it well.
This article focuses on editing, but also on persuasive writing. Anyone interested in writing a winning brief, motion, or opening and closing argument will like this one. -CCE
An excellent treatise on editing and writing is Jonathan Van Patten’s article “On Editing,” 60 South Dakota Law Review 1 (2015). Employing an extremely clear writing style, he states and explains his propositions on good writing. I plan to distribute the article to the editors of my school’s law reviews.
You can access the article here.
22 Wednesday Apr 2015
Posted in Abbreviations, Appellate Writing, Bad Legal Writing, Brief Writing, Editing, Initialisms, Legal Writing, Readability
≈ Comments Off on A Novel Approach To Circuit Court’s Word Limit Rule. If Only It Had Worked!
Squished-Together Words Don’t Count As One, Federal Circuit Says; Appeal Is Tossed, by Debra Cassen Weiss, ABA Journal (with hat tip to William P. Statsky!)
A litigant that squeezed multiple words together and resorted to abbreviations didn’t satisfy word limits in its briefs and won’t be able to pursue its appeal, according to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
The appeals court tossed the patent appeal by Pi-Net International in an April 20 order (PDF). How Appealing links to the opinion and a story by Law360 (sub. req.), which dubbed the creative wording ‘a trick straight out of high school English class.’ . . .
* * *
On appeal, JPMorgan objected to Pi-Net’s first brief, saying it attempted to evade the 14,000 word limit by deleting spaces between various words and squeezing them together, according to the Federal Circuit. The Federal Circuit offered an example: One case citation consists of 14 words, but Pi-Net squeezed them together to make them into one word. . . .
17 Friday Apr 2015
Posted in Judges, Legal Analysis, Legal Writing, Legalese, Plain Language, Readability
≈ Comments Off on The Art of Well Written Judicial Opinions.
Tags
Judicial Opinions, Legal Analysis, Legal Writing, Legal Writing Pro Blog, Legalese, Ross Guberman, Trial Judges
The Seven Writing Strategies of Highly Effective Trial Judges, by Ross Guberman, Legal Writing Pro Blog
http://legalwritingpro.com/blog/the-seven-writing-strategies-of-highly-effective-trial-judges/
Asked to name the world’s best opinion writers, traditionalists might rattle off Lord Denning, Learned Hand, or Oliver Wendell Holmes. Modernists often prefer Antonin Scalia or Richard Posner. And the trendy might cite new kids on the block like Lord Sumption or Elena Kagan.
Those august names all deserve heaps of praise. But the fame that these judges enjoy raises questions of its own: Can you write a ‘great’ opinion if you’re a judge who’s not a household name, or even especially influential? And can you write a ‘great’ opinion in a case that’s not a high-profile constitutional crisis, but just another run-of-the-mill dispute in an overflowing docket?
I say ‘yes’ on both counts. No matter how routine a case, and no matter how little time you have, you can write a great opinion. It may not be ‘great’ for the ages, but it can offer readers a clear, accessible, and easy-to-follow analysis of your reasoning, with even a bit of flair or personality for good measure. . . .
29 Sunday Mar 2015
Posted in Bad Legal Writing, Editing, Legal Writing, Plain Language, Readability
≈ Comments Off on Legal Writing Tips from “Dear Scrivener.”
A Potpourri Of Tips About Legal Writing, by Judith D. Fischer, Legal Writing Prof Blog
http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/legalwriting/2015/03/a-potpourri-of-tips-about-legal-writing.html
For a potpourri of tips about legal writing, see Dear Scrivener by Scott Moise in the March 2015 South Carolina Lawyer. . . .
24 Tuesday Mar 2015
Posted in Jury Instructions, Jury Instructions, Jury Persuasion, Legal Writing, Legalese, Plain Language, Readability, Trial Tips and Techniques
≈ Comments Off on Plain English Jury Instructions Are Like A Breath of Fresh Air After A Long Trial.
Tags
Dr. Ken Broda-Bahm, Jury instructions, Persuasive Litigator, Plain English, Trial Tips & Techniques
Embrace Plain English Jury Instructions, by Dr. Ken Broda-Bahm, Persuasive Litigator
I often play the role of the ‘judge’ during a mock trial. In that capacity, I have the pleasure of reading the legal instructions to the mock jurors just before they deliberate. While I’m droning on about ‘preponderance,’ and ‘proximate cause,’ and making the plaintiff ‘whole,’ I am often met with quizzical looks as the jurors grapple with the language. Some have even made a vain attempt to raise their hands to ask a question. I sometimes wish I could explain, ‘Look, my point is not for you to understand this… it is just to be realistic.’ And, too often, what is realistic is for the instructions to be dense at best and incomprehensible at worst. ’Jury instructions are written by lawyers,’ the American Judicature Society points out, ‘and are often filled with legal language whose meaning is not apparent to those without legal training.’ . . .
22 Sunday Mar 2015
Posted in Bad Legal Writing, Editing, Legal Argument, Legal Writing, Legalese, Plain Language, Punctuation, Readability
≈ Comments Off on Legislative Drafting And Plain English – They Are Not Mutually Exclusive.
A Classic Example Of Bad Writing, by Judge Mark P. Painter, Judging Strictly By Merit
http://www.judgepainter.org/legalwriter55
In my last column I gave kudos to the U.S. Supreme Court and its rules committee for rewriting the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in plain language. But the fight goes on. Legislative drafting continues to be particularly egregious. . . .
15 Sunday Mar 2015
Posted in Appellate Law, Appellate Writing, Brief Writing, Editing, Legal Analysis, Legal Argument, Legal Writing, Plain Language, Proofreading, Readability
≈ Comments Off on Are Shorter Appellate Briefs Better? Appellate Judges Seem To Think So.
Tags
Appellate Brief Writing, Appellate Judges, James B. Levy, Legal Skills Prof Blog, Legal Writing, Louis J. Sirico Jr., The Wall Street Journal Law Blog
Federal Appellate Judges Want To Shorten The Length of Briefs, Lawyers Object, by Professor James B. Levy, Legal Skills Prof Blog
If an appeal is extremely complex, would a reduction in the size of a brief compromise the ability of a party to win an appeal to a federal appellate court? Apparently, appellate judges do not think so.
Before making up your mind, please read Professor Sirico’s posts, also included by Professor Levy in his original post. It may not be a question of length, but experience. What do you think? -CCE
The Wall Street Journal Law Blog has posted this story about the reaction by many appellate attorneys to a proposal that would reduce the word count on federal appellate briefs under the federal rules of appellate practice from 14,000 to 12,500. (Interestingly, my co-blogger Professor Sirico reported last month on a new study (and here) that supports the lawyers’ objections to the proposed rule change insofar as the study found that longer briefs filed by appellants ‘strongly’ correlates with success on appeal. However, the authors of the study cautioned against inferring that it is word count, rather than the complexity of the underlying issues which may require more thorough explanations, that explains the correlation). . . .
08 Sunday Mar 2015
Posted in Brief Writing, Editing, Legal Analysis, Legal Argument, Legal Writing, Readability, Style Manuals
≈ Comments Off on A Valuable Cache of Legal Writing Articles by George Gopen.
Excellent Legal Writing Articles by George Gopen, by Louis J. Sirico, Jr., Legal Skills Prof Blog
There are many really superb experts in legal writing. Mr. Sirico is one of them. Mr. Sirico has provided us with a link to not one, but all of Mr. Gopen’s legal writing articles published in Litigation since 2011 to date. Do not lose this, and save under “must read”! -CCE
George Gopen has been writing columns on legal writing for “Litigation,” the magazine of the ABA Section on Litigation. You can access them here.
I cannot speak too highly of George’s work. Years ago, I attended one of his workshops and discovered a new way to think about writing. I have passed the lessons down to my students, and now, even years after they graduate, they tell me how greatly those lessons transformed their writing and contributed to their success.
02 Monday Mar 2015
Posted in Boilerplate Forms, Boilerplate Forms, Contract Law, Editing, Legal Writing, Legalese, Readability, Style Manuals
≈ Comments Off on Ken Adams Shares What It Takes To Be A Great Contract Writer.
What It Takes to Be a Great Contract Drafter, by Ken Adams, Adams On Contract Drafting
http://www.adamsdrafting.com/what-it-takes-to-be-a-great-contract-drafter/
If you write or work with contracts, this is a “must read” post by Ken Adams. Drafting a good contract is a special type of legal writing. A good, solid contract is a work of art. Also, please don’t ignore the Comments at the end of the post. There’s more good information there as well. -CCE
Here’s what it takes to be a great contract drafter:
Know the deal mechanics. As a drafter, it’s your job to express the transaction in a way that advances your client’s interests most effectively. You can’t do that unless you’re aware of the full range of options for structuring the deal. I don’t mean to suggest that you yourself have to possess that information—it’s enough if you’re able to pick the brains of people with that information.
Know the law. With some transactions, there’s no need for the law to rear its head in the contract. In other transactions, it would be appropriate, or necessary, for the law to feature in the contract. I discuss that in this 2013 post. As drafter, it’s your job to figure out what role, if any, the law plays in your transaction. Again, it’s enough if you can get that information from others.
Follow a comprehensive style guide. You don’t follow a comprehensive set of guidelines for the building blocks of contract language? Sorry, you’re not a great drafter. You’re not even a good drafter. Instead, you’re parroting whatever contract language you copy, which is likely dysfunctional. You’re following conventional wisdom, which more often than not is bogus. Don’t throw at me your education, your reputation, your long list of publications, your compensation, your track record as a dealmaker. They’re all beside the point. Of course, the only set of guidelines out there is A Manual of Style for Contract Drafting, but don’t hold that against me. I’m not stopping anyone else from producing their own comprehensive set of guidelines. And following my guidelines isn’t rocket science. . . .
01 Sunday Mar 2015
Posted in Bad Legal Writing, Economics, Law Office Management, Legal Writing, Legalese, Management, Plain Language, Readability, Time Management
≈ Comments Off on No Question About It – Bad Legal Writing Squanders Your Money.
Tags
Bad Legal Writing, Findlaw, Law Firm Economics, Matthew Salzwedel, Plain English, The Lawyerist Blog
Face It — Bad Legal Writing Wastes Money, by Matthew Salzwedel, The Lawyerist Blog
https://lawyerist.com/60599/face-it-bad-legal-writing-wastes-money/
A recent article on FindLaw.com called Five Ways Attorneys Waste Money claimed that attorneys can cut clients’ costs by avoiding needless motions, staffing cases leanly, focusing on the important issues, avoiding petty spats with the opposition, and being smart about when to settle.
But the article ignored the most important way attorneys can save money for their firms and clients: by learning how to write in plain English.
Most attorneys don’t believe that writing style matters. They might concede that writing in plain English can be aesthetically pleasing to the reader; but they also say that it’s not worth the time to learn how to do it because there’s no evidence that writing in plain English saves time or money.
But these attorneys ignore what legal-writing experts have taught — and what the empirical evidence has shown — for more than 50 years: that plain English saves time and money by increasing the ability of readers to understand and retain what they have read. . . .
28 Saturday Feb 2015
Posted in Citations, Court Rules, Courts, Legal Technology, Legal Writing, Local Rules, Readability, Style Manuals
≈ Comments Off on Formatting for Persuasive Legal Writing Makes A Difference.
Paragraphs and Indentation Formatting for Persuasive Writing, by Collin Walke, Vol. 86 OBJ No. 5 (2014).
http://www.okbar.org/members/BarJournal/archive2015/FebArchive15/OBJ8605Walke.aspx
Contrary to that pesky little voice in your head at this very moment, formatting is not a boring topic and is absolutely critical when writing a legal brief. Aside from the technical rule requirements for formatting briefs, which will be discussed in greater detail below, formatting is essential for persuasion. One of the best legal writers I have ever had the privilege of working with has a paperweight on his desk that reads: ‘Good writing is clear thinking made visible.’ Without good formatting, quality content will be lost in the mire of facts, law and argument.
The point of this article is to outline what good formatting looks like. First, the brief must be written in accordance with the formatting rules of your particular court. A brief for the district court of Oklahoma County will look different from a brief for the Western District of Oklahoma. Second, the format of the brief must be laid out so that it assists the reader in understanding your position. Finally, your format should match the needs of the particular brief. . . .
[Emphasis added.] Continue reading
27 Friday Feb 2015
Posted in Brief Writing, Judges, Legal Analysis, Legal Argument, Legal Writing, Motions, Plain Language, Readability, Statement of Facts, Summary of the Argument
≈ Comments Off on What A Judge Needs To Give You What You Want.
Effective Legal Writing: One Judge’s Perspective, by Retired Judge Wayne Alley, originally published in the Oklahoma Bar Journal, Feb. 14, 2015– Vol. 86, No. 5.
http://www.okbar.org/members/BarJournal/archive2015/FebArchive15/OBJ8605Alley.aspx
This is one of the best articles I have read on how to write to win your case. Judge Alley tells you exactly what a judge wants to read in your brief. So put yourself in the judge’s shoes, and imagine that you’re reading yet another brief at the end of a long day at the end of an extremely long week.
Here you will find what a judge needs to give you what you want. -CCE
What does a judge want in writings (motions, briefs, applications, reports, proposed orders) filed in his or her cases? There is an easy answer; the judge wants an easy out. The judge wants a clear, simple, substantiated solution to the problem at hand — a solution with which he is comfortable. To this end, consider the following suggestions.
Tell the judge why. Except for uncontested applications, such as for extensions of time, both sides typically submit persuasive statutes, cases and secondary authorities in support of their respective positions. Not many positions are “slam dunks.” The judge needs to be educated not merely that the respective authorities are out there, but why one set of authorities leads to a better result than the other. The judge shouldn’t have to figure it out for him or herself. . . .
19 Thursday Feb 2015
Posted in Editing, Legal Writing, Plain Language, Proofreading, Readability, Spell Checking
≈ Comments Off on How “Readable” Is Your Writing?
Check Your Language Level, by Dr. Ken Broda-Bahm, Persuasive Litigator Blog
http://www.persuasivelitigator.com/2015/02/check-your-language-level.html
Dr. Brada-Bahm makes a good point. Our job is to be understood, regardless of the method of communication. There is, however, an easy way to check your document’s readability statistics if you use Microsoft Word.
To set readability statistics for in Word, click on “Options,” then “Proofing.” Scroll down to “When correcting spelling and grammar in Word.” Check the box for “Show readability statistics.” Afterwards, when you run a spell check on any Word document, it will show the readability statistics for your document. -CCE
The image of the trial lawyer that comes closest to our ideal might involve the advocate standing in front of the jury or the bench, waxing eloquent in oral argument. But the reality is that, even for lawyers who get to trial frequently, they’re writing more often than they’re speaking. Before, after, and often instead of those opportunities for oral persuasion, they are drafting briefs, motions, and memos. As attorneys get used to that written style, it can become difficult to gauge how comprehensible they are. You think you’re being perfectly clear — and you are, to you — but you may have lost track of how much work is falling on the reader. There is, however, a tool that can help, and lawyers should be aware of it. Contently, the content-marketing blog, writes about ‘reading level analysis‘ as a free online service you can use in order to test whether you’re writing at, say, a 5th, 9th or 12th grade reading level. The test itself is easy. You simply navigate to the ‘readability-score‘ site, paste any text you want into the window, or upload a file if it is in pdf, or paste in a URL if the text is already online. Then, click ‘calculate score’ and you instantly get a ‘reading ease’ number that varies between 0 (most difficult) and 100 (easiest), along with a more understandable identification of the grade-level that you are writing at. . . .
19 Thursday Feb 2015
Posted in Bad Legal Writing, Legal Writing, Readability, Statutory Interpretation
≈ Comments Off on 10th Circuit Uses Sentence Diagramming To Decipher Federal Gun Statute.
Tags
10th Circuit Court of Appeals, Diagramming Sentences, Federal Statutes, Judith D. Fischer, Legal Writing, Legal Writing Skills Prof Blog
The Tenth Circuit Applies The Art of Sentence Diagramming, by Judith D. Fischer, Legal Writing Prof Blog (with hat tip to Brian Glassman!)
he Tenth Circuit recently interpreted a statute so confusing that the court decided to diagram some of its language. In United States v. Rentz, the court observed that ‘Few statutes have proven as enigmatic as 18 U.S.C. §24(c),’ which concerns crimes committed while using a firearm. Puzzling over what the statute’s modifiers mean, the court used the same device some of us learned in grade school—setting out a clear diagram of how words relate to one another grammatically. The court thus reached enough clarity to affirm the district court’s decision. Still, the court stated, ‘Even now plenty of hard questions [about the statute’s meaning] remain.’
My conclusions: 1) The art of diagramming sentences should be revived, and 2) Congress should focus more on clear drafting.
26 Monday Jan 2015
Posted in Apple, Apps, Editing, iPhones, Legal Technology, Legal Writing, Plain Language, Proofreading, Readability
≈ Comments Off on iWrite Legal – Free iPhone App For Legal Writers.
Tags
iPhone App, Kathleen Vinson, Law Sites Blog, Legal Writing, Legal Writing App, Legal Writing Tips, Robert Ambrogi, Writing Checklist
Can An iPhone App Improve Your Legal Writing?, by Robert Ambrogi, Law Sites Blog
http://www.lawsitesblog.com/2013/03/can-an-iphone-app-improve-your-legal-writing.html
Can an iPhone app improve your legal writing? Kathleen Vinson thinks so. A professor of legal writing at Suffolk University Law School in Boston, Vinson has developed iWrite Legal, a free iPhone app designed to help legal writers improve their writing skills.
The app consists of three sections — Legal Writing Tips, Legal Writing Checklist and Additional Resources — all aimed at providing advice and guidance on writing, editing and proofreading a legal document.
The first section, Legal Writing Tips, is simply that — a collection of tips, no doubt gleaned from Vinson’s own experience teaching legal writing. Each tip occupies its own screen, with a heading such as ‘Finding the Time to Write,’ ‘Be Consistent’ and ‘One Point at a Time,’ followed by a paragraph that elaborates on the point. For example, under the heading, ‘Writing Efficiently,’ the app offers this tip:
Do you feel that it is taking a long time to draft a document? Good writing takes time but often what slows writers down is trying to edit while you write. Don’t edit/revise while you write or stop to think of the perfect word. Write quickly and then once you have completed a draft, edit slowly. If you have to, cover the screen while you type so you can fight the urge to edit while you write.
The second part of the app consists of four legal writing checklists. They cover the initial stages of writing, revising, editing and proofreading. For example, the checklist for the initial stages of writing lists items such as, ‘What is the purpose of the document?’, ‘What relief do you want from the court?’ and ‘Why is your client entitled to this relief?’ As you satisfy yourself that you have covered each element, touch that element in the app to check it off.
The final component of the app, Additional Resources, simply provides links to the Suffolk Law Legal Practice Skills program’s Twitter feed, YouTube video and Legal Writing Tips podcasts.
So will this app make you a better writer? . . . .
17 Saturday Jan 2015
Posted in Boilerplate Forms, Discovery, Editing, Interrogatories, Legal Writing, Legalese, Plain Language, Readability, Requests for Admissions, Requests for Production
≈ Comments Off on Federal Magistrate On Writing Discovery and Responses – “What We Have Here Is A Failure to Communicate.”
Tags
Discovery, Discovery Disputes, Discovery Responses, Legal Writing, Oklahoma Bar Journal, U.S. Magistrate Paul J. Cleary
| Some Thoughts on Discovery and Legal Writing, by Judge Paul J. Cleary, Oklahoma Bar Journal, 82 OBJ 33 (2011)
Since 2002, The Hon. Paul J. Cleary has served as U.S. Magistrate Judge for the Northern District of Oklahoma. He has the joy of overseeing discovery in civil litigation. You could say that experience makes him an expert. It should be no surprise that he urges counsel to use good writing habits and avoid boilerplate language. -CCE “What we have here is failure to communicate.” Cool Hand Luke (Jalem Productions 1967). |
There is a famous scene at the end of the movie Blow Up2 where mimes face off in a tennis match using an imaginary ball and racquets. It reminds me of too many discovery disputes: I sit as the linesman, watching helplessly as the lawyers roil and argue between intermittent swats at imaginary objects.
The fundamental problems that underlie most discovery disputes might be pulled from the pages of a marriage counselor’s handbook: Fear of commitment and inability to communicate. Lawyers won’t commit to a definition of the legal dispute: It’s not a simple breach of contract; it’s a contract, fraud, bad faith, conspiracy, racketeering case. The ill-defined nature of the dispute drives discovery into vast, uncharted territory. By the same token, lawyers responding to discovery requests won’t commit to a clear statement of what responsive documents exist and which of those will be produced. The purpose of this article is to examine the problem of inartful/incomprehensible discovery requests and responses and to offer some observations and, perhaps,some solutions. . . .
17 Saturday Jan 2015
Posted in Appellate Law, Appellate Writing, Legal Writing, Louisiana Supreme Court, Readability
≈ Comments Off on The Right Way to Assemble Attachments To Appellate Supervisory Writs.
Tags
Appellate Law, Appellate Procedure, Appellate Writs, Legal Writing, Louisiana Civil Appeals, Raymond P. Ward
Practical Tip For Assembling A Writ Application, by Raymond P. Ward, Louisiana Civil Appeals
Today [January 14. 2015] I started working on an application to the court of appeal for a supervisory writ, and was reminded of my # 1 tip for this task: the first thing you do—before you write a word—is assemble the attachments. Uniform Rule 4-5 lists the attachments that must be included. I like to put them all together and give them provisional page numbers before I start writing the application itself, starting with A1, A2, etc. If your attachments are in PDF (if they’re not, they should be), putting them together and page-numbering them is a snap with Adobe Acrobat or other PDF-handling software.
Assembling the appendix on the front end has at least two advantages. First, when you draft the writ application, you can include pinpoint citations to items in the appendix. Second, you find out immediately if you’re missing something that you need (such as the hearing transcript).
There is one little hitch to my system: Uniform Rule 4-5(B) requires all pages of the application, including the application itself and all attachments, to be consecutively numbered. And if you don’t know how long the application itself will be until you write it, you don’t know until the end of the process the number of the first page of the attachments. But this problem is easy to solve. Once the application is in almost-final form, you know how long it will be. If it’s 25 pages, you know that the number of the first page of attachments will be 26. So when I’m finalizing, say, a 25-page application, I just add 25 to all my “An” citations to the attachments and remove the “A”. A1 becomes 26, A2 becomes 27, etc. Is this time-consuming? A bit. But not nearly as time-consuming as trying to fill in totally blank citations to the attachments.
Which leads to another tip: when, in writing a writ application, you cite one of the attachments, cite it by its consecutive-page number. If it’s a multi-volume writ application, cite by volume and page number. Example: “See writ app. vol. 2 p. 301.” Your job as the writer is to make it as easy as possible for the reader to locate what you’re citing. So give the reader the information needed to instantly locate whatever it is you’re citing.
The Researching Paralegal 
You must be logged in to post a comment.