• Home
  • About Me
  • Disclaimer

The Researching Paralegal

~ Articles and Research for Legal Professionals

The Researching Paralegal

Tag Archives: Legal Writing

Latin Legal Terms of Art.

30 Sunday Oct 2016

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Legal Dictionaries, Terms of art

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

Latin legal terms of art, Legal Writing

While most legal writing scholars favor plain language and elimination of legalese and Latin words and phrases, there are some well-recognized – and often used – Latin legal terms of art. Some examples include stare decisis, per curiam, certiorari, res ipsa loquitur, ad hoc, mens rea, et alia, in rem, in personam, inter vivos, nolo contendere , and prima facie.

If you intend to take one of the national paralegal exams for certification or registration or if you are a paralegal student, there are Latin terms of art you should know. -CCE

Duhaime’s Latin Dictionary 
http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/Category/LatinLawTermsDictionary.aspx

Latin Phrases and Expressions, BusinessBall.com http://www.businessballs.com/latin-terms-phrases.htm

Legal Terminology Definitions http://www.pegc.us/_LAW_/latin_legal_defs.pdf

Latin Legal Phrases   http://latin.topword.net/?Legal

CN-Fact Sheet 9, Carter Newell Lawyers©2015 http://bit.ly/2eoQrqg

Share this:

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

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

How Long Is Too Long? Lawyers and Judges Disagree.

20 Thursday Oct 2016

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

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

Briefs, James B. Levy, Legal Skills Prof Blog, Legal Writing, Page Number Limit

Judges Want Briefs to Be Shorter but Lawyers Push Back, by James B. Levy, Legal Skills Prof Blog

http://bit.ly/2dQjl5R

Often courts have local rules limiting the length of a brief. Have you ever wondered why? In everything you’ve ever heard or read about good legal writing, can you imagine a judge saying this?

“Yes, please, write a long, detailed brief. Use as many obscure legal authorities as possible. I  have loads of time and plenty of staff to look up each one. Repeat your argument several times to make sure I know how important it is. Above all, make it as hard to read as possible.

I want lengthy quotations. Ideally, make them at least a page long, if not longer. One sentence paragraphs are the best! And by all means, pile on the legalese. Verbosity and obscure language is always appreciated.”

Of course not. They simply do not have the luxury of time to read huge briefs, especially if they are poorly written. I have said before that, while working for an Oklahoma Supreme Court Justice, I literally saw a bad brief go flying across the room. The Judge, in disgust, tossed it aside, and picked up the other side’s brief. Ouch! -CCE

Share this:

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

Dump This Common Legal Writing Phrase!

09 Sunday Oct 2016

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

≈ Comments Off on Dump This Common Legal Writing Phrase!

Tags

Law Skills Prof Blog, Legal Analysis, Legal Writing, Louis J. Sirico Jr.

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

Share this:

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

What’s Wrong With Using “And/Or”?

06 Thursday Oct 2016

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Grammar, Legal Writing, Persuasive Writing

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

Tags

And/Or, Legal Writing, Slaw Canada’s online legal writing magazine, Ted Tjaden

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 →

Share this:

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

A Punctuation Guide for Everyone.

05 Wednesday Oct 2016

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

≈ Comments Off on A Punctuation Guide for Everyone.

Tags

Grammar & Punctuation, Jordan Penn, Legal Writing

The Punctuation Guide, by Jordan Penn, J.D.

http://www.thepunctuationguide.com/index.html

I am impressed. Mr. Penn, after exhaustive research, created this unique punctuation guide. This is a keeper. -CCE

Share this:

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

What Does “Shall” Really Mean?

05 Wednesday Oct 2016

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Contract Law, Legal Analysis, Legal Writing

≈ Comments Off on What Does “Shall” Really Mean?

Tags

Legal Analysis, Legal Writing, Legal Writing Prof Blog, Professor Joe Kimble, Professor Mark E. Wojcik

Shall Means “Must.” Unless it Means “Should.” Mark E. Wojcik, Professor of Law, John Marshall Law School (Chicago), Legal Writing Prof Blog

http://bit.ly/2dg7M46

In the legal writing world of contracts, legislation, and case law, legal writers debate about the meaning of the word “shall.” Many legal writing scholars have argued that “shall” means “must” without exception, and that is what I was taught in paralegal school. Professor Wojcik makes a convincing argument for dropping the ambiguous “shall” in favor of words that leave no question about what they mean. -CCE

Share this:

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

Using the “Rule of Three.”

10 Saturday Sep 2016

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Closing Argument, Jury Persuasion, Legal Writing, Opening Argument, Oral Argument, Storytelling, Trial Tips and Techniques

≈ Comments Off on Using the “Rule of Three.”

Tags

Dr. Ken Broda-Bahm, Legal Writing, Oral Argument, Persuasive Litigator, Rule of Three

Remember the Rule of 3: It’s Simple, Logical, and Effective, by Dr. Ken Broda-Bahm, Persuasive Litigator™

http://bit.ly/2chpUMD

So simple, but so persuasive. It is especially useful in oral argument, which is the topic of this post from Dr. Broda-Bahm. -CCE

[W]hen litigators are looking for a way to paint a bit of style and rhetorical effectiveness into their oral arguments, openings, or closings, the rule of three ought to be one of the first items in your tool box. Focusing on — you guessed it — three reasons, this post will explain why.

Continue reading →

Share this:

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

Bryan Garner Says Citations In Footnotes are Okey Dokey.

04 Sunday Sep 2016

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Brief Writing, Citations, Footnotes, Legal Writing

≈ Comments Off on Bryan Garner Says Citations In Footnotes are Okey Dokey.

Tags

Briefs, Bryan Garner, Citations, Footnotes, Legal Writing, On Lawyering Blog, Rich Cassidy

Bryan Garner Says: Put Your Citations in Footnotes, by Rich Cassidy, On Lawyering Blog

http://onlawyering.com/2014/03/bryan-garner-says-put-your-citations-in-footnotes/

After posting on one judge’s opinion of against citations in footnotes, for the sake of balance, here is Bryan Garner’s opinion against putting them anywhere else but footnotes.

When it comes to writing briefs, let the court rules dictate which method you use. If a court or judge goes to the trouble to address such details, there is a reason. Ignore the court’s preference at your own risk! -CCE

[I]n the February 2014 issue of the ABA Journal, and in the corresponding ABA Journal Law News “Bryan Garner on Words” column, “Textual Citations Make Legal Writing Onerous, for Lawyers and Nonlawyers Alike,” Garner promotes a suggestion for writing briefs and memoranda.   . . . The suggestion is simple: Instead of including bibliographical material —  the numerical citation used to find a case or legal authority  — in the text of a  legal document, Garner suggests publishing this material in a footnote.

Continue reading →

Share this:

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

Written Discovery Basics.

20 Saturday Aug 2016

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Discovery, E-Discovery, Interrogatories, Legal Writing, Requests for Admissions, Requests for Production

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

Definitions and Instructions, Discovery, Legal Writing, Motion to Compel, Objections

I admit it. I love writing and answering discovery. Too often, I have seen boilerplate discovery asking for something that is not relevant. What a waste. Do not write discovery if you know nothing about the case. Blindly sending boilerplate discovery at best makes you look busy. At worst, it makes you look sloppy.

Discovery rules change. Read and re-read the court rules, local court rules, and the applicable discovery code. At the outset of the case, send your client and the opposing party a litigation hold letter. It does not matter whether either is an individual or a big corporation. Everyone uses email and sends texts on their cell phones.

Before you start writing discovery, you have to be familiar with the facts and law of your client’s case. If you aren’t, read the pleadings. Understand why the plaintiff sued the defendant(s) and what answer the defendant gave to those allegations, including all affirmative defenses. If it helps, make a chart or an outline.

There is a basic way to determine what discovery you should request. First, make a list of what you need to prove your case. We’ll call this List #1. Second, ask yourself whether you have everything needed to prove (or defend) everything on List #1? You won’t. So, third, make a list of what you need – List #2. Your client will provide some of the evidence you need, and you will use discovery to continue your search. Revise List #2 to identify what you need but do not have.

With List #2 as your guide, use discovery to get whatever else you need to prove your case. Each type of discovery is unique. Play to their strengths, which is a post all by itself. Craft your discovery to snag that evidence and identify anyone who is a potential witness and/or document custodian.

A quick word about Definitions and Instructions. Please do not regurgitate the discovery rules. I admit that I do not follow my own advice. I like to remind opposing counsel (and the opposing party) that there is a continuing obligation to supplement discovery. In the hopes that it will save time and aggravation, I also like to add the specific language from the discovery code about when you can object and why.

Define only what is necessary. If there is room for confusion, clarify what is what and who is whom. If the case revolves around specific documents, such as a contract or an event, define it with a simple designation. Your goal is instant recognition of whatever it is. If there are more than one contract or event, make your definitions basic and easy to recognize.

As soon as you receive the responses to your discovery, mark every incomplete answer or objection. Ask for supplementation where needed, and follow up. If an objection is ridiculous or simply obstructive, challenge it while at the same time building exhibits to support a motion to compel (read the rules!). Do not wait until the discovery deadline is looming to stay on top of this.

This one should be a no-brainer, but I still see it every so often. A party objects to the most basic discovery question and refuses to answer. The other side asks a standard, basic interrogatory, and you object. Really? You cannot enforce it. You know it; I know it; and the other side knows it.

Say goodbye to your boilerplate forms. If you use a form, proofread. Know your case. Adapt your discovery plan as the case progresses. These are not all the basics, but it will hopefully give you a running start. -CCE

Share this:

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

Bad Brief!

28 Thursday Jul 2016

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

≈ Comments Off on Bad Brief!

Tags

Briefs, IRAC, Jane L. Istvan, Legal Writing, Sarah E. Ricks, SSRN

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

Share this:

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

The Quintessential Contract Drafting Checklist.

23 Saturday Jul 2016

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Contract Law, Legal Analysis, Legal Writing

≈ Comments Off on The Quintessential Contract Drafting Checklist.

Tags

Contracts, Glen D. West, Legal Skills Prof Blog, Legal Writing, Louis J. Sirico Jr., State Bar of Texas In-House Counsel Course, William P. Statsky

A Contract Drafting Checklist, posted by Louis J. Sirico, Jr., Director of Legal Writing, Professor of Law, Villa Nova University School of Law, Legal Skills Prof Blog (with hat tip to William P. Statsky)

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/legal_skills/2016/07/a-contract-drafting-checklist.html

This is a gem.  It is specifically targeted for anyone interested in contract law. If contract law is not your area, I encourage you to read it anyway – and bookmark it. -CCE

Share this:

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

Tell Your Client’s Story With A Good Narrative.

19 Sunday Jun 2016

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Contract Law, Legal Argument, Legal Writing, Persuasive Writing

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

Tags

Karen Sneddon, Legal Skills Prof Blog, Legal Writing, Louis J. Sirico Jr., Narrative Techniques, Oklahoma Law Review, Susan Chesler

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 →

Share this:

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

Using Abbreviations and Definitions in Legal Writing.

19 Sunday Jun 2016

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Abbreviations, Contract Law, Legal Writing

≈ Comments Off on Using Abbreviations and Definitions in Legal Writing.

Tags

Adams On Contract Drafting Blog, Contracts, Ken Adams, Legal Writing

Don’t Use Definition-First Autonomous Definitions, by Ken Adams, Adams on Contract Drafting Blog

http://www.adamsdrafting.com/dont-use-definition-first-autonomous-definitions/

Ken Adams provides excellent examples of how to use an abbreviations and definitions. Use this for contracts, but keep in mind that it also works in pleadings, motions, discovery, etc.

When you use abbreviations and definitions for a person, a law, an event, or contract, it makes your writing tighter and more concise. It makes sense to abbreviate lengthy names, but take which definition you pick. While striving for a way to make your writing less wordy, don’t let the abbreviation or definition de-humanize your client or overly sanitize your client’s case. -CCE

Share this:

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

Posner Asks What is Obviously Wrong with the Federal Judiciary. Is This A Trick Question?

09 Thursday Jun 2016

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Appellate Judges, Appellate Law, Citations, Federal Judges, Judges, Legal Analysis, Legal Argument, Legal Writing, The Bluebook

≈ Comments Off on Posner Asks What is Obviously Wrong with the Federal Judiciary. Is This A Trick Question?

Tags

Appellate Judges, Hon. Richard Posner, Legal Writing, The Bluebook, The Green Bag

What Is Obviously Wrong With The Federal Judiciary, Yet Eminently Curable, Part I, by Richard Posner, 188 19 GREEN BAG 2D 187 (with hat tip to William P. Statsky) (The Green Bag is Quarterly Legal Journal dedicating to good legal writing, supported in part by the George Mason University School of Law)

http://www.greenbag.org/v19n2/v19n2_articles_posner.pdf

If you’re looking for a good Bluebook bashing, here it is. -CCE

At the level of form, the first thing to do is burn all copies of the Bluebook, in its latest edition 560 pages of rubbish, a terrible time waster for law clerks employed by judges who insist as many do that the citations in their opinions conform to the Bluebook; also for students at the Yale Law School who aspire to be selected for the staff of the Yale Law Journal – they must pass a five-hour exam on the Bluebook. Yet no serious reader pays attention to citation format; all the reader cares about is that the citation enable him or her to find the cited material. Just by reading judicial opinions law students learn how to cite cases, statutes, books, and articles; they don’t need a citation treatise. In the office manual that I give my law clerks only two pages are devoted to citation format. [Footnotes omitted; emphasis added.]

Continue reading →

Share this:

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

What’s It Like In Your Judge’s Shoes?

03 Friday Jun 2016

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Brief Writing, Legal Argument, Legal Writing, Legalese, Persuasive Writing, Readability

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

Tags

Legal Skills Prof Blog, Legal Writing, Louis J. Sirico Jr., Persuasive Writing, Sherri Lee Keene

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 →

Share this:

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

The Proper Use and Interpretation of “Shall” and “Will.”

26 Thursday May 2016

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Contract Law, Corporate Law, Grammar, Legal Analysis, Legal Writing

≈ Comments Off on The Proper Use and Interpretation of “Shall” and “Will.”

Tags

Contract Writing, Elizabeth Ruiz Frost, Grammar, Legal Writing, Oregon State Bar Bulletin (February/March), Use of "Shall" and "Will"

The Legal Writer – The Problem with Shall, by Elizabeth Ruiz Frost, Oregon State Bar Bulletin (February/March)

https://www.osbar.org/publications/bulletin/12febmar/legalwriter.html

When we draft legal documents for our clients, we aim to articulate who can do what and when. Those rights and obligations are established through words of authority. But in legal writing, inconsistent use and interpretation of some words of authority can create ambiguity in our documents.

The word shall can be particularly troublesome. Drafters often use shall in place of other words like does, will, should, might or may. If we use shall sometimes to connote a mandatory term, at other times to connote a discretionary term, and once in a while to connote a future event, how can a reader accurately determine our intent? When a word of authority is used inconsistently, courts are left to determine the word’s meaning. To avoid squabbles over ambiguous terms, think through each word of authority that you write and use these words consistently.

Continue reading →

Share this:

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

How To Use “That” and “Which,” And Why You Should Care.

22 Sunday May 2016

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Contract Law, Corporate Law, Grammar, Legal Writing, Punctuation, Readability

≈ Comments Off on How To Use “That” and “Which,” And Why You Should Care.

Tags

Better Writing Skills, Contract Writing, Grammar, Legal Writing, That, Which, Writing Resources From Scribe Consulting

Using That and Which Correctly, Better Writing Skills, Writing Resources From Scribe Consulting

http://www.betterwritingskills.com/tip-w022.html

An easy-to-understand example of the difference between “that” and “which” and why, in legal and business writing, it is important to use each correctly.  It also provides an excellent example of how grammar and punctuation mistakes can dramatically change the meaning of your document. -CCE

For more writing tips on common grammar errors, go to http://www.betterwritingskills.com/writing-tips.html.

Share this:

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

Russ Guberman’s Six Editing Tips.

22 Sunday May 2016

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

≈ Comments Off on Russ Guberman’s Six Editing Tips.

Tags

Legal Writing, Legalese, Russ Guberman

No Thanks: Six More Words and Phrases to Avoid, by Russ Guberman

http://legalwritingpro.com/blog/no-thanks-six-more-words-and-phrases-to-avoid/#comment-91

Small wording changes can liven up your style by speeding up and punching up your prose.

Let’s match wits with some of the world’s best judicial writers below. Or is that ‘with certain of the world’s most illustrious judicial draftspersons infra’?

The Rules of Engagement: If a word or phrase is bolded in the first part of each set, the big guns didn’t write it. For each of those bolded terms, think of a lighter or shorter replacement before you peek below.

Continue reading →

Share this:

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

Just Really Good Legal Writing.

21 Saturday May 2016

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Bad Legal Writing, Editing, Grammar, Legal Writing, Legalese, Persuasive Writing, Punctuation, Readability

≈ Comments Off on Just Really Good Legal Writing.

Tags

Eugene Volokh, Grammar, J. Alexander Tanford, Legal Writing, Maurer School of Law, Punctuation

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 →

Share this:

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

Judges Quote Yoda.

12 Thursday May 2016

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

≈ Comments Off on Judges Quote Yoda.

Tags

Anna Massoglia, Appellate Writing, Lawyerist.com©, Legal Writing, Star Wars, Yoda

Galactic Disputes: Judges Channel the Wisdom of Star Wars, by Anna Massoglia, Lawyerist.com©

http://bit.ly/23Dyp5K

Making legal jargon understandable to the general masses is a big job. Some more creative judges think outside of the box to get their point across through pop culture references. With all of the hype surrounding Star Wars: The Force Awakens,  it should come as no surprise that Star Wars references are seeping into judicial opinions.

Continue reading →

Share this:

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

Another Legal Writing Honey Pot

08 Sunday May 2016

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Appellate Writing, Legal Argument, Legal Writing, Legalese, Persuasive Writing, Plain Language

≈ Comments Off on Another Legal Writing Honey Pot

Tags

Bryan A. Garner, Legal Writing, The Scribes Journal of Legal Writing, U.S. Supreme Court Justices

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  

Share this:

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

Will The Indigo Book Become The Accepted Legal Citator And Replace The Bluebook?

23 Saturday Apr 2016

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

≈ Comments Off on Will The Indigo Book Become The Accepted Legal Citator And Replace The Bluebook?

Tags

ALWD Citation Manual, Legal Citation Format, Legal Writing, The Bluebook, The Indigo Book

Update on the Baby Bluebook, by Barco 2.0 : Law Library Reference, University of Pittsburg School of Law (with hat tip to William P. Statsky!)

http://bit.ly/1SqRYJk

Carl Malamud has introduced the Harvard Law Review Association to The Indigo Book, An Open and Compatible Implementation of A Uniform System of Citation.

For years, I have used The Bluebook as my bible for legal citation. During the years I taught Bluebook citations, I saw The Bluebook come out with new editions many, many times. It was frustrating when the new edition changed the rule about whether you used a comma after a signal or some other arbitrary change. Not only frustrating, but hard to explain the reason for the revision to students.

There have been several major events that gave The Bluebook a genuine reasons to come out with a new edition. States, like Oklahoma, adopted a “public domain” citations. The Internet became a legal research tool. Still, there were times it seemed that The Bluebook’s interpretation was unnecessarily complicated.

The ALWD Citation Manual was created to improve legal citation standards. It was also updated periodically when needed. Until now, The Bluebook and the ALWD Citation Manual were the mainstream acceptable go to” sources for legal citation.

The Bluebook began receiving more criticism for its new editions. Were the changes necessary or a way to create more revenue for the publishers? Hard to say for many but not for Carl Malamud. It will be interesting to see how The Indigo Book is received by legal educators and legal professionals. -CCE

Share this:

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

Scare Quotes.

12 Tuesday Apr 2016

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

≈ Comments Off on Scare Quotes.

Tags

Brendan Kenny, Lawyerist.com©, Legal Writing, Quotation Marks

How Scare Quotes Are Saving Legal Writing, by Brendan Kenny, Lawyerist.com

http://bit.ly/1Q5OVDY

Much has been written about the poor state of lawyers’ writing, but less about their punctuation. For years, grammarians and writing gurus have bemoaned misuses of quotation marks—and these misuses are legion. But for lawyers, quotation-mark abuse may not be so bad. And using scare quotes might be the beginning of better legal writing. That’s because lawyers put scare quotes on words, terms, and phrases they would not use otherwise. And if scare quotes make lawyers comfortable enough to start using more plain language, their use might be a good thing.

Continue reading →

Share this:

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

Brief Writing – The Summary of the Argument.

13 Sunday Mar 2016

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP 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

Judith Fischer, Legal Skills Prof Blog, Legal Writing, Louis J. Sirico Jr., Summary of the Argument

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 →

Share this:

  • Print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Tweet
  • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • More
  • Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Share on Telegram (Opens in new window) Telegram
Like Loading...
← Older posts
Newer posts →
Follow The Researching Paralegal on WordPress.com

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Search

Sign In/Register

  • Create account
  • Log in
  • Entries feed
  • Comments feed
  • WordPress.com

Categories

Archives

  • June 2024
  • March 2022
  • January 2022
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • January 2021
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • October 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • May 2019
  • March 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013

Recent Comments

lawyersonia's avatarlawyersonia on In Custodia Legis – Lega…
Eric Voigt's avatarEric Voigt on Top 20 Paralegal Blogs, Websit…
profvoigt's avatarprofvoigt on Research Guides in Focus – Mun…
Make Your PDF Docume… on Make Your PDF Document Edit-Pr…
madlaw291282999's avatarmadlaw291282999 on Using Hyperbole -Are You Riski…

Recent Comments

lawyersonia's avatarlawyersonia on In Custodia Legis – Lega…
Eric Voigt's avatarEric Voigt on Top 20 Paralegal Blogs, Websit…
profvoigt's avatarprofvoigt on Research Guides in Focus – Mun…
Make Your PDF Docume… on Make Your PDF Document Edit-Pr…
madlaw291282999's avatarmadlaw291282999 on Using Hyperbole -Are You Riski…
  • RSS - Posts
  • RSS - Comments

Blog at WordPress.com.

  • Subscribe Subscribed
    • The Researching Paralegal
    • Join 460 other subscribers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • The Researching Paralegal
    • Subscribe Subscribed
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Report this content
    • View site in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar
 

Loading Comments...
 

You must be logged in to post a comment.

    %d