• Home
  • About Me
  • Disclaimer

The Researching Paralegal

~ Articles and Research for Legal Professionals

The Researching Paralegal

Tag Archives: Brief Writing

Another “How To” Really, Really Write Bad Briefs.

24 Monday Oct 2016

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

≈ Comments Off on Another “How To” Really, Really Write Bad Briefs.

Tags

Brief Writing, Legal Writing, Michigan Bar Journal, Plain English Committee

How to Ruin Your Briefs – Or The Screwtape Lawyers, by Austin J. Hakes, 50 Mich. B. J. (Aug. 2016)

http://www.michbar.org/file/barjournal/article/documents/pdf4article2928.pdf

The author has a well-known new client with an unusual request – write the worst briefs possible. The author offers eight rules to as guidelines to fulfill his client’s wish. This will be interesting! And, because it comes from the Michigan Bar Journal’s Plain English Committee, you know it’s going to be good. -CCE

That’s right— he wants us to write terrible briefs. This surprised me too at first, but then he explained his new litigation strategy: suspecting that it might be more effective to ruin judicial minds than to manipulate them in his favor, he wants to use terrible writing to drive appellate judges totally insane. Writing a bad brief is easy enough, but writing a truly disastrous one—one capable of inducing madness—is a task requiring deliberate effort and careful study. Our greatest challenge may be a lack of helpful reference materials, for although there are several good books on the art of writing well, the craft of writing badly has been suppressed and maligned for far too long. In the hope of invigorating the persecuted art of infuriating prose, I offer this letter. It’s a meager beginning, but if you follow these eight rules to the best of your ability, your writing should be sufficiently misguided and maddening to serve our client well.

Continue reading →

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

In Litigation, First Things First.

10 Thursday Mar 2016

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Brief Writing, Discovery, Evidence, Legal Writing, Litigation, Motions

≈ Comments Off on In Litigation, First Things First.

Tags

Brief Right, Brief Writing, Evidence, Kirby Griffis, Litigation, Motions

Motions first, depositions second, by Kirby Griffis, Brief Right!

http://briefright.com/motions-first/

In my business, litigation, there is a typical order of events. A lawsuit is filed, then discovery is taken, then motions are filed and ruled upon, and then there is a trial. Litigators who haven’t thought carefully about their business may fall into the error of compartmentalizing these steps too much. Have you ever gone to write a crucial motion, only to discover that the testimony or documentary evidence that you need to put forward under the applicable law was never obtained, or came in the wrong way without being fixed?

Continue reading →

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

Failure To Follow Court Rules Earned This Fed Up Benchslap.

23 Monday Nov 2015

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Appellate Law, Bad Legal Writing, Benchslap, Brief Writing, Citations, Court Rules, Courts, Issues On Appeal, Judges, Legal Writing

≈ Comments Off on Failure To Follow Court Rules Earned This Fed Up Benchslap.

Tags

Above the Law (blog), Appellate Law, Benchslap, Brief Writing, Court Rules, Kathryn Rubino

A Lawyer Way Out Of Her League Gets Benchslapped By Frustrated Judge, by Kathryn Rubino, Above The Law Blog

http://tinyurl.com/o9hk847

The case did not seem suspicious. A commercial painter claimed he had not been paid for work hired by a building manager. The lawyer took the painter’s case. Unfortunately, under oath, her client admitted that he had faked his evidence with forged invoices.

No one was surprised when the trial court imposed sanctions. The surprise came when the lawyer appealed the case with a badly written brief. The lawyer only made it worse when she submitted her corrected brief to the Court. The judge’s response is a classic benchslap. -CCE

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

Judge’s Benchslap for Missing E-Filing Deadline By Three Minutes.

13 Saturday Jun 2015

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Benchslap, Calendar/Docketing, E-Filing, Judges, Law Office Management, Legal Technology

≈ Comments Off on Judge’s Benchslap for Missing E-Filing Deadline By Three Minutes.

Tags

Above the Law, Benchslap, Brief Writing, Deadlines, E-Filing, Judges, Staci Zaretsky

Judge Shames Lawyers Over Midnight Filings In Awesomely Sarcastic Order, by Staci Zaretsky, Above The Law

http://tinyurl.com/oeld5yg

Thanks to the advent of electronic filing, lawyers get to work nearly 24 hours a day. You’re not expected to work that much, of course, but your firms certainly wouldn’t mind it if you did. Got a motion due at midnight? No problem! You’re overworked and you’ve got a million other things on your plate, so putting one filing on the backburner can’t hurt. After all, you can just furiously write it the night it’s due, and click a few buttons to get it filed by 11:59 p.m. But for some, until the last minute will come back to bite you in the ass. . . .

Continue reading →

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

Excellent Argument About Technology and Citation Placement.

13 Saturday Jun 2015

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP 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. . . .

Continue reading →

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

The Role and Power of Amicus Curiae.

25 Monday May 2015

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Recent Links and Articles

≈ Comments Off on The Role and Power of Amicus Curiae.

Tags

Amicus Curiae, Brief Writing, Ken Strutin, Legal Writing, LLRX.com

Amicus Curiae: Information in the Service of Justice, by Ken Strutin, LLRX.com

http://www.llrx.com/features/amicuscuriae.htm

From the pleas of Abraham on behalf of Sodom and Gomorrah1 to the appeals of Voltaire2 and Zola,3 intercessors for humanity4 have called for mercy and justice.5 In the legal system, such intonements have taken on the form of specialized briefs called amicus curiae (‘friend of the court’).6 And through extension and by complement they have appeared in the form of law reviews, media articles, exposes, and books.7 Indeed, there is an oscillating relationship between amici and law reviews, which has been beneficial for scholarship and public discourse. In the end, it is the passion for justice that drives individuals, governments, academics, lawyers, journalists and other interested groups to befriend the courts.8

The amicus has the power to speak to many audiences simultaneously. In the courtroom, it is the honest broker; in the public media, it is the educator; in academia, it is scholarly analysis and historical perspective. Bounded by common law, court rules, and the conventions of publishing (briefs, articles or books), the amicus can yet move knowledge into venues where it is most needed. An amicus can serve as an ‘oral shepardizer,’ expert witness, or quasi-litigant that extends the range of judicial notice and culls, concentrates and vets information into a case-specific resource.9

Still, there is a tension between the role of the amicus as independent expert offering facts and a party arguing an agenda, which can ultimately impact the quality and constitutionality of decision-making.10 . . .

Continue reading →

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

Abandon Weak Points To Bolster Your Stronger Legal Arguments.

13 Wednesday May 2015

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

≈ Comments Off on Abandon Weak Points To Bolster Your Stronger Legal Arguments.

Tags

ABA Journal, Brief Writing, Bryan A. Garner, Daniel Kahneman, Legal Analysis, Legal Writing

First Impressions Endure, Even In Brief Writing, by Bryan A. Garner, ABA Journal

http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/first_impressions_endure_even_in_brief_writing

We have a long history of judges saying that (1) little errors in a brief betoken bigger mistakes, (2) less is more, and (3) good briefs demand little physical or mental effort from the reader. Even so, briefs in most courts are astonishingly ill-proofread, they are rarely tight, and lawyers seldom confine themselves to two or three points. There’s a disconnect between what judges say they want and what lawyers give them. Curious.

There’s also a tendency to disbelieve things that can’t be scientifically proved. Hence I’ve heard lawyers say they don’t care so much about what judges say they find persuasive in written arguments. Those judges might not actually know what motivates them, the skeptical lawyers say. They want proof.

So let’s take the three points mentioned at the outset and see whether, when it comes to judging, there’s any scientific evidence to back up the anecdotal evidence that good writing enhances persuasion. We’ll use the findings of Nobel laureate Daniel Kahneman, the Princeton psychologist and economist who wrote a superb book: Thinking, Fast and Slow. What he says is most illuminating. . . .

Continue reading →

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

Too Many Acronyms = Alphabet Soup.

16 Thursday Apr 2015

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Abbreviations, Acronyms, Bad Legal Writing, Brief Writing, Court Rules, Courts, Initialisms, Legal Writing, Local Rules, Spell Checking

≈ Comments Off on Too Many Acronyms = Alphabet Soup.

Tags

ABA Journal, Abbreviations, Acronyms, Brief Writing, Court Rules, Debra Cassen Weiss, Legal Writing

Check Your Briefs For Acronym Overuse, DC Circuit Clerk Tells Lawyers In Campaign Finance Case, by Debra Cassen Weiss, ABA Journal

http://tinyurl.com/mff4sqx

Acronyms continue to bedevil the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

Parties before the court are advised in circuit rules to avoid little-known acronyms; lawyers who didn’t heed the advice were called out in a 2012 opinion. Now the clerk’s office is doing its part to police the briefs. . . .

Continue reading →

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

Avoid These Mistakes When Writing Your Brief’s Statement of The Facts.

25 Wednesday Mar 2015

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Brief Writing, Legal Writing, Statement of Facts

≈ Comments Off on Avoid These Mistakes When Writing Your Brief’s Statement of The Facts.

Tags

Brief Right, Brief Writing, Kirby Griffis, Statement of the Facts

Your Statement of Facts Matter, by Kirby Griffis, Brief Right!

http://briefright.com/facts-matter/

When lawyers get started writing a brief, they often seem to get themselves warmed up by explaining to the court what the brief is about. Or so they think. These early sections, which might be called ‘Procedural Background,’ ‘Background of the Motion,’ or something related, are a good place to look for this common briefing error.

It starts with a blitz of irrelevant dates, which may be further muddied by a seeming lack of certainty about those same dates. Here’s an example: ‘Plaintiff filed her Complaint on or about June 5, 2011.’ Why would you ever say this to the court? . . . .

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

You’ve Written The Brief. Now What About The Conclusion?

07 Saturday Feb 2015

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Brief Writing, Editing, Legal Argument, Legal Writing, Plain Language

≈ Comments Off on You’ve Written The Brief. Now What About The Conclusion?

Tags

Brief Writing, Bryan Garner, Conclusion, Legal Writing, Plain English, Rebecca Phalen

No more copying and pasting. Draft a strong conclusion. by Rebecca Phalen Blog

http://www.rebeccaphalen.com/draft-strong-conclusion/

You finally finished drafting the argument section of your brief; you are mentally spent. So for the conclusion you copy and paste: ‘For the foregoing reasons, Defendant asks this Court to grant its motion.’ Yes, it feels a little anticlimactic and abrupt, but at least the brief is done. Perhaps you think that judges aren’t paying attention by the end anyway.

But the next time you are tempted to end your brief this way, consider that Bryan Garner, in Legal Writing in Plain English, called this type of conclusion ‘a formulaic cop-out that says nothing.’ Yikes.

Writing a strong conclusion that actually says something can be hard work. But here are some tips to get you started on ending strongly: . . . .

Continue reading →

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

Writing the Opening Of A Brief – The Right Way.

21 Friday Nov 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Appellate Writing, Bad Legal Writing, Brief Writing, Legal Analysis, Legal Argument, Legal Writing, Litigation, Readability

≈ Comments Off on Writing the Opening Of A Brief – The Right Way.

Tags

Brief Openings, Brief Writing, Kenneth F. Oettle, Legal Writing, Litigation Strategy, Sills Cummis & Gross P.C.

Open A Brief With Substance, Not Bluster, by Kenneth F. Oettle, Newsroom Publications, Sills Cummis & Gross, P.C.

http://tinyurl.com/l7jk5a8

Ken Oettle is one of my favorite legal writers. In my opinion, his book, Making Your Point!, should be on the reference shelf of every serious legal writer. Yes, it’s that good. There are many excellent legal writers. Ken is one of the best.

To comply with copyright, no excerpts can be published. You will still find the entire article at the link from Sills Cummis & Gross, P.C. -CCE

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

Improve Your Brief With The Curse of Knowledge Test.

14 Friday Nov 2014

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

≈ Comments Off on Improve Your Brief With The Curse of Knowledge Test.

Tags

Appellate Writing, Brief Writing, Bryan Garner, Legal Writing, Mark Herrmann, Raymond Ward, Steven Pinker, the (new) legal writer blog

The Curse Of Knowledge: The Root Of Incomprehensible Writing, by Raymond P. Ward, the [new] legal writer blog

http://tinyurl.com/kjpzl9a

Bryan Garner tells participants in his seminars that good writing makes the reader feel smart, while bad writing makes the reader feel stupid. What is the root of this kind of bad writing? Mark Herrmann has an idea about that, drawn from cognitive scientist Steven Pinker: we think that our readers already know what we are trying to tell them. Pinker calls this phenomenon ‘the curse of knowledge.’

So what is the cure for this affliction? Herrmann recommends empathy for the reader. ‘Put yourself in the reader’s state of ignorance,’ he counsels, “and write for that audience.’ Pinker suggests testing your draft on people who don’t already know what you’re trying to tell them:

A better way to exorcise the curse of knowledge is to close the loop, as the engineers say, and get a feedback signal from the world of readers—that is, show a draft to some people who are similar to your intended audience and find out whether they can follow it. Social psychologists have found that we are overconfident, sometimes to the point of delusion, about our ability to infer what other people think, even the people who are closest to us. Only when we ask those people do we discover that what’s obvious to us isn’t obvious to them.

Garner has a similar recommendation in The Winning Brief, at least for cases where the amount at stake is worth the expense: Convene a focus group of lawyers unfamiliar with the case to play the part of appellate judges by reading and reacting to your draft brief. This exercise has many benefits. One of them is to tell you whether the curse of knowledge has infected your brief.

 

 

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

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

22 Tuesday Jul 2014

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

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

Tags

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

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

http://tinyurl.com/k8urt5j

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

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

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

Some Of The Common Mistakes Made In Appeals.

04 Friday Jul 2014

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

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

Tags

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

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

http://tinyurl.com/knotqwo

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

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

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

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

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
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

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
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

Reminder – Minnesota Court Rules Are A-Changing.

23 Monday Jun 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Adoption Law, Appellate Judges, Appellate Law, E-Filing, Family Law, Juvenile Law, Legal Technology, Minnesota, Recent Links and Articles

≈ Comments Off on Reminder – Minnesota Court Rules Are A-Changing.

Tags

Adoption, Appellate Court Rules, Brief Writing, E-Filing, Juvenile Law, Minnesota, Minnesota Judicial Branch

In an earlier post, (https://researchingparalegal.com/2014/06/14/recent-court-rule-changes-for-minnesota-courts/) I mentioned that changes to appellate, juvenile, and adoption court rules in Minnesota’s would go soon go into effect on July 1, 2014. They are:

(Effective July 1, 2014) Supreme Court Promulgates Amendments to the Rules of Juvenile Protection Procedure and the Rules of Adoption Procedure.

(Effective July 1, 2014)  Court of Appeals Issues Standing Order Regarding Paper Copies of Briefs

(Effective July 1, 2014) Supreme Court Issues Standing Order Regarding Paper Copies of Briefs

(Effective July 1, 2014) Supreme Court Promulgates Amendments to the Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure

The orders for the appellate courts look especially important.  You can find hyperlinks to these orders here: http://tinyurl.com/nxawksy.   -CCE

 

 

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

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
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

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
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

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
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

How To Remove “The Fluff” In Legal Writing.

25 Sunday May 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Bad Legal Writing, Brief Writing, Legal Analysis, Legal Argument, Legal Writing, Legalese, Motions

≈ Comments Off on How To Remove “The Fluff” In Legal Writing.

Tags

Brief Writing, Judge Lynn N. Hughes, Legal Writing, Legalese, Michigan Bar Journal, Plain Language

A Standard Motion Revised, by Judge Lynn N. Hughes, Plain Language, Michigan Bar Journal (May 2014)

http://www.michbar.org/journal/pdf/pdf4article2367.pdf

Judge Hughes eliminates unnecessary words, what he calls “the fluff.” In a simple, direct example, Judge Hughes clearly marks which words are meaningless, useless fillers.

You see this language used every day by lawyers and legal professionals. It is common as dirt. Some writers insist that archaic legalese is “required,” although there is no court rule, case law, or statute to support that opinion. It is not a “legal term of art.”

The point of legal writing is to persuade the reader – the court. Why do we add “the fluff”? Beats me. -CCE

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

Garner’s Interview With Appellate Judges On Oral Argument and Brief Writing.

20 Tuesday May 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Appellate Judges, Appellate Law, Bad Legal Writing, Brief Writing, Court Rules, Courts, Federal District Court Rules, Federal Judges, Judges, Legal Analysis, Legal Argument, Legal Writing, Statement of Facts, Trial Tips and Techniques

≈ Comments Off on Garner’s Interview With Appellate Judges On Oral Argument and Brief Writing.

Tags

Brief Writing, Bryan Garner, Chief Judge Sandra Lynch, Judge Frank Easterbrook, Judge Pierre Leval, Judge Stephen Reinhardt, Jurisdiction, Legal Writing, Legal Writing Prof Blog, Oral Argument, Scribes Journal of Legal Writing

Scribes Journal Presents Interviews With Judges, By Legal Writing Prof, Legal Writing Prof Blog

http://tinyurl.com/najqatd

In the latest issue of the Scribes Journal of Legal Writing, Bryan Garner continues his series Scribes 5-14of interviews with judges. This time he talks with five United States Court of Appeals judges to collect some inside information about brief writing and oral argument. Here are some of the judges’ pithy quotes:

Judge (and former Chief Judge) Frank Easterbrook of the Seventh Circuit said a lawyer should know why the court has jurisdiction. He imagines having a button he could press to send a lawyer out to the street if the lawyer can’t explain the basis for appellate jurisdiction. ‘Because if we don’t have jurisdiction, why are we here?’

Judge Pierre Leval of the Second Circuit said the first thing he looks at in a brief is the argument headings ‘to get a sense of what’s involved.’  Then he can read the facts in context.

Chief Judge Sandra Lynch of the First Circuit said many lawyers look ‘frozen’ when a judge asks a question. But instead, they should think, ‘This is a great way that I can hit a few more balls out of the park; I can help my case.’

Judge Stephen Reinhardt of the Ninth Circuit likes briefs written in ‘simple, clear sentences.’ And he likes ‘a story that flows so you can tell what it’s about and why . . . something I can follow easily.’ . . .

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

Mediation and Settlement Presentation and Strategies.

02 Friday May 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Brief Writing, Legal Argument, Legal Writing, Mediation

≈ Comments Off on Mediation and Settlement Presentation and Strategies.

Tags

Brief Writing, Cogent Legal Blog, Derek Ryan, Mediation, Mediators, Settlement

The Best Strategies to Present Your Case In Mediation, by Derek Ryan, Cogent Legal Blog

http://bit.ly/R9l7zU

Over the last 10 years, there’s been a significant shift in the way mediations are conducted. When I first started in the field, mediation briefs would come in via fax the night before the mediation. The mediator would begin the case with a joint conference where each side would make an opening statement, similar to trial, and after these openings the mediator would often have to spend the rest of the afternoon defusing the tension created by a joint conference.

There are two important aspects of developing presentations for mediation:  (1) Communicate with the mediator before the mediation; and (2) develop a presentation that will inform but not inflame the opposing party. Remember that mediation is voluntary, and the goal is not to make the other side walk out. The goal is to get the case settled in the best way for your client.

In this blog post, I’ll cover several strategies to best present your case at mediation, including dos and don’ts for using graphics and technology to enhance your results. . . .

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

Benchslap Open Season on Acronyms.

30 Wednesday Apr 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, Acronyms, Appellate Law, Bad Legal Writing, District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals, Legal Writing, Legalese, Readability

≈ Comments Off on Benchslap Open Season on Acronyms.

Tags

Acronyms, Benchslap, Brief Writing, Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, D.C. Circuit Judge Kavanagh, D.C. Circuit Judge Silberman, Legal Writing, Legalese, Mark Hermann, Ross Guberman

Alphabet Attack, by Ross Guberman’s Legal Writing Blog

http://legalwritingpro.com/blog/alphabet-attack/

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.’ . . .

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

What’s The Point of An Appellant’s Reply Brief?

24 Monday Feb 2014

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

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

Appeal, Appellate Briefs, Appellate court, Appellate Law, Brief Writing, Legal Argument, Reply Brief

Yes, Filing an Appellant’s Reply Brief Really is Necessary, by Mike Skotnicki, Briefly Writing Blog

http://brieflywriting.com/2014/02/03/yes-filing-an-appellants-reply-brief-really-is-necessary/

In both my prior practice of appellate law in a fairly large firm and now in my work as a freelance appellate attorney, I’ve been asked by lawyers I was working with whether it was really necessary to file an Appellant’s Reply Brief. My short answer is, ‘Only if you want to win.’

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...
← Older 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

  • Register
  • Log in
  • Entries feed
  • Comments feed
  • WordPress.com

Categories

Archives

  • 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

Eric Voigt on Top 20 Paralegal Blogs, Websit…
profvoigt on Research Guides in Focus – Mun…
Make Your PDF Docume… on Make Your PDF Document Edit-Pr…
madlaw291282999 on Using Hyperbole -Are You Riski…
How to Treat Bad Cli… on Why Do Bad Clients Deserve The…

Recent Comments

Eric Voigt on Top 20 Paralegal Blogs, Websit…
profvoigt on Research Guides in Focus – Mun…
Make Your PDF Docume… on Make Your PDF Document Edit-Pr…
madlaw291282999 on Using Hyperbole -Are You Riski…
How to Treat Bad Cli… on Why Do Bad Clients Deserve The…
  • RSS - Posts
  • RSS - Comments

Blog at WordPress.com.

loading Cancel
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.
Cancel

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Loading Comments...
Comment
    ×
    %d bloggers like this: