BLOG.LEGALWRITING.NET: Recent Comments

Comment on Harsh quotation from Joseph Kimble . . .

Bill — Tue, 11 May 2010 19:20:08 GMT

Am I the only one who thinks that the string of ideas separated by semi-colons is a bit much?

Comment on Please note that throat-clearing phrases exist

Mary A — Tue, 04 May 2010 18:34:38 GMT

You've left out my all-time fave throat-clearer -- "whereas."

Comment on Schiess's Legalwriting.net Blog is moving

John — Thu, 29 Apr 2010 18:13:20 GMT

"Unnecessary Latin" That's priceless, and I strongly agree. I concur that information about Keefe's evidence being dismissed lacks detail; but the rewrite would probably save time to review, though in fact a extra words to read. Short statements do not necessarily equate to a quicker comprehension.

Comment on Please note that throat-clearing phrases exist

Ben Opipari — Wed, 14 Apr 2010 17:14:30 GMT

In rhetoric, these are called metadiscourse, which is a discussion about a discussion. It's like radio static in that it gets in the way of the message and wastes everyone's time. No one, for example, reads "We must consider" and thinks, "Thanks--I shall consider that now."

Comment on Time constraints + money constraints = good-enough writing

Bob Wilde — Tue, 13 Apr 2010 03:25:48 GMT

Canned, or partially canned, briefs lead to a better written product. My employment practice is relatively narrow so I reuse portions of prior memos regularly. When I do the older building blocks get edited along with the newer work and the final product is better than the first. The trick is to make certain to save the polished block back to the stock.

Wayne says:
The key phrase in your comment is "older building blocks get edited." That's good.

But I've seen people plug in older building blocks and not edit them, and the result is a mish-mash of unfocused writing.

Comment on Schiess's Legalwriting.net Blog is moving

Don Cruse — Wed, 07 Apr 2010 13:47:22 GMT

New York values short, cryptic opinions from their intermediate appellate courts. The theory is that shorter opinions save time for the courts. I question whether that's true. But I know from my brief time in New York that the short opinions are often too conclusory (and, as the opinion here, jumble together too many conflicting legal theories) to be useful as precedent in future cases.

Your rewrite is a big improvement, but do you think it says enough to be useful to the jurisprudence? (The kid's key evidence was brushed aside in a throw-away paragraph in both versions.)

Wayne says:
Thank you for the insight. Cryptic is the right word. It was hard to figure what exactly was going on in terms of legal theories.

Thank you for the compliment on the rewrite, but no, it probably isn't any more helpful to the jurisprudence. I didn't go read the briefs or undertake any research. I just took what was in the original opinion and rewrote it in my style.

Comment on Time constraints + money constraints = good-enough writing

Auberon Quin — Wed, 07 Apr 2010 04:47:50 GMT

Two other points:

1. I absolutely agree that it's important to develop strong writing skills and learn to write well quickly. Just don't expect somebody else to pay for you to do it. Turn your humdrum memos into genius-level prose on your own time.

2. Thanks for taking my comment seriously. I'm new to this blog and was very surprised to find my comment featured and treated fairly.

3. You do good work. Thank you.

4. Yes, I know.

Comment on Time constraints + money constraints = good-enough writing

Auberon Quin — Wed, 07 Apr 2010 04:43:44 GMT

I'm back.

I agree that the solution is to write well from the beginning. I also agree that we should all be nice to each other and try to get along; also, everyone who wants one should have a puppy.

I don't mean to diminish the importance of good writing. I spend a lot of time on my own writing, and I think the topic's important enough that I teach it (badly) at the local law school.

This is not an issue about what the client or billing attorney will tolerate. Clients pay for legal outcomes, not for well crafted memos that nobody except the billing partner will ever see. Save the honing and polishing -- save the elegance -- for when it matters. The rest of the time, just get the job done quickly, efficiently, and cheaply.

Not everything has to be a work of art.

Comment on What I wish I had known about legal writing--part 2

Jennifer Sullivan — Tue, 30 Mar 2010 16:55:48 GMT

Wayne,

Thanks for this entry. It prompted me to read Outliers too (at least the 10,000 hour chapter).

I wholeheartedly agree with your concern over young lawyers being deemed "ineffective legal writers" by more experienced counsel. That kind of stigma can really hurt a lawyer at the outset of her career. Good legal writing is indeed a learn-able skill, and it's great to know there are legal writing instructors out there with this perspective (even if it is not so prevalent in the halls of big law firms!)

Comment on Schiess's Legalwriting.net Blog is moving

Kendall Gray — Tue, 30 Mar 2010 14:02:31 GMT

I recently did something similar and rewrote Justice Breyer's Hertz opinion -- redlining and everything. Kind of fun. Check it out: http://tinyurl.com/y9s4rcm