Judges Find Plain-English Legal Writing More Persuasive

A recent survey of almost 300 judges, including federal trial, federal appellate, state trial, and state appellate judges, reveals that judges overwhelmingly prefer plain-English legal writing to traditional “legalese” legal writing.

Judges commented that the plain-English version of a writing sample compared to a traditional legalese version of the same writing sample was “more persuasive because of the succinctness of the argument” and “easier to understand, more clear and straightforward, and therefore more persuasive.”  In Writing to Persuade Judges, Sean Flammer, found that judges found the cleaner, leaner plain-English version to be more effective and understandable.

Using Quotations Effectively in Legal Writing

Beginning legal writers often lack confidence in their own words and instead rely on others to express what the novice cannot.  This reliance on quotations results in bulky and clumsy legal writing.  Unfortunately, experienced legal writers overuse quotations.

Readers (judges, other attorneys, your clients) want to know what YOU know and what YOU think, not that you read something and picked the best language without putting it into your own words.  The most effective legal writers use quotations sparingly and only when the quoted language itself is critical.  Summarize and paraphrase whenever possible.  An article from earlier this year in the Oregon State Bar Bulletin lays out a few rules for quoting effectively as well as some caveats.  In “Notes on Quotes: When and How to Borrow Language,” Rebekah Hanley discusses appropriate and effective use of quotations and an alternative to excessive quotations.

Tips for Writing to Generalist Judges

Like doctors, lawyers are increasingly specializing their practices as the law becomes more intricate and dense.  These former lawyer specialists are now sitting on the bench in general jurisdiction courts, routinely making decisions on matters outside their former specialized practice areas.   These judges regularly rely on the bar to inform them on the relevant law.  But, how are specialist lawyers to effectively write and advocate to such generalist judges?  What information and how much information should the specialist lawyer present?

Douglas E. Abrams, author and law Professor at the University of Missouri, wrote a timely article in Precedent for the Missouri Bar Association, reprinted by the Nebraska Lawyer.  Effective Written Advocacy Before Generalist Judges: Advice from Recent Decisions examines the effects of lawyer specialization on the bench consisting of “generalist judges.”   From the beginning of each case, each judge is limited in his or her knowledge of not only the facts, but also the law.  According to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, “courts rely on lawyers to identify the pertinent facts and law.”   And, because trial and appellate courts decide more cases on the written brief than oral argument, such identification of the law and legal issues as well as persuasion depends on the lawyer’s written product.

Abrams presents two strategies for effective written advocacy revealed by recent reported trial and appellate decisions: (1) Orienting the Court and (2) Avoiding Jargon. 

Read the rest of this entry »

How To Use An Apostrophe – A Grammar Cartoon

The Oatmeal - How to Use an Apostrophe

Grammar and punctuation is SOOOO much easier when the instructions are illustrated! Are you stymied when deciding whether to include the apostrophe? Do you find yourself staring at the word “its” and wondering – “wait, does it need an apostrophe between the t and s or not?”

The Oatmeal has you covered. Now, you can be entertained by The Oatmeal’s witty grammar and punctuation comics AND relearn (or just plan learn) the rules. You’re welcome. (Note the correct use of the apostrophe to form a contraction. Many thanks to The Oatmeal.)

Tips From the Bench: Better Motions to Compel

“Even at their best, motions to compel are usually one of the least favorite parts of the job. They are tedious and very fact intensive.”

The Honorable Randy Wilson, a District Court judge in Harris County, Texas, and a seasoned trial lawyer, wrote the above sentiment in ”The Motion to Compel.”  Judge Wilson describes “bad” and “good” motions to compel from the Court’s view, which comes down to overall organization, not  poor writing or derogatory language, per se.  In Judge Wilson’s opinion, the best Motions to Compel group the disputed discovery requests by issue instead of methodically listing each request and leaving the judge to sort out which legal issue applies (note: make it easy for your reader).

For example, the “bad” Motion to Compel diligently listed each disputed request, stated the relevant objection, and argued why the requested information is relevant and why it should be produced. This “bad” type of Motion to Compel could have tens or even hundreds of objections and leaves the reader (ahem, the JUDGE who you are asking for help) to sort out the requests for him or herself and find the common denominators.  In other words, the “bad” Motion to Compel focused the judge’s attention on the trees with no direction as to how the trees were relevant to the forest.

Read the rest of this entry »