Discover and read the best of Twitter Threads about #LegalWriting
Most recents (17)
In a surprise to absolutely no one, Justice Kagan's opinion in Jack Daniels is a terrific piece of #LegalWriting. Here's a quick #WilenskyOnStyle thread about the introduction, which illustrates an organizational trick I love to keep the reader on track. /1
First, the full opinion is here. /2 supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf…
So what is the organizational trick? Repetition of key words - at the *beginning* of sentences - so that the reader always knows what's coming. /3
What does a brief look like when a dozen legal writing superstars (from @wilsonsonsini, Williams & Connolly LLP, and others) team up to write it?
Google's brief in Gonzalez.
We read a ton of legal writing, and Lisa Blatt and her team created magic here.
Let's see how. 1/x
Google's brief in Gonzalez.
We read a ton of legal writing, and Lisa Blatt and her team created magic here.
Let's see how. 1/x
What makes this brief so special is that it's a tour de force in a tricky (but powerful) technique: Emotional priming.
YouTube was accused of recommending ISIS terrorist videos to users. So the crack-shot team knew they had to do some emotional work before the legal stuff.
YouTube was accused of recommending ISIS terrorist videos to users. So the crack-shot team knew they had to do some emotional work before the legal stuff.
Let's start with the big picture. Because priming requires you to first figure out your end goals—what are the emotional or ideological targets you're aiming for?
It's worth reading Google's introduction with this in mind. But here is some of what they may have shot for:
It's worth reading Google's introduction with this in mind. But here is some of what they may have shot for:
We had #ChatGPT write a legal brief.
But instead of giving it a simple open-ended prompt, we taught it how to use some of the techniques used by the best legal writers in the world.
Check out what it came up with—if only more legal writers wrote this well. 1/x
But instead of giving it a simple open-ended prompt, we taught it how to use some of the techniques used by the best legal writers in the world.
Check out what it came up with—if only more legal writers wrote this well. 1/x
To celebrate the upcoming launch of Write.law's new AI legal writing practice, we had our team work with GPT to write a motion from start to finish.
All we used was a simple list of factual details, some legal research notes, and our teams' prompts.
2/x
All we used was a simple list of factual details, some legal research notes, and our teams' prompts.
2/x
If you'd prefer an interactive version of the whole motion (complete with breakdowns of how we got GPT to craft each part of the motion) check it out here: write.law/writing-walkth…
Ok, let's break it down!
3/x
Ok, let's break it down!
3/x
For the 2nd year in a row, I ended my fall #legalwriting course by having students listen to an episode of @JonahPerlin's How I Lawyer podcast and then answer a series of short reflection questions. And, once again, I was blown away by the responses.
From tips on practical lawyering skills to creative career paths that students had never considered to honest conversations about the emotional toll that client work can take on lawyers, it's clear that students learned a lot from the interviews they heard.
Many thanks to @JonahPerlin for continuing to turn out these valuable episodes and to the dozens of guests for generously loaning their time and their candid insights into the practice of law.
For those looking to do a similar exercise, here was the assignment description:
For those looking to do a similar exercise, here was the assignment description:
Lawyers are often asked to give feedback on the writing of others but they are rarely trained how to do it well.
Every year I give written feedback on more than 350 pieces of #LegalWriting.
Here are 5 quick(ish) tips to give better written feedback on legal writing:
Every year I give written feedback on more than 350 pieces of #LegalWriting.
Here are 5 quick(ish) tips to give better written feedback on legal writing:
1. PURPOSE
Feedback can have many purposes. Sometimes it's to get a doc out the door. Other times it's to make a doc sound like you (supervisor). Other times to "assess" the writer.
Know your purpose!
Most often it is to make the document better but also the writer better.
Feedback can have many purposes. Sometimes it's to get a doc out the door. Other times it's to make a doc sound like you (supervisor). Other times to "assess" the writer.
Know your purpose!
Most often it is to make the document better but also the writer better.
This is what we call "formative feedback." Teach the person to fish as the cliche goes.
But many supervisors assume everything will be taken as formative feedback because the writer will figure it out.
They won't. Good formative feedback takes effort and a different approach.
But many supervisors assume everything will be taken as formative feedback because the writer will figure it out.
They won't. Good formative feedback takes effort and a different approach.
With a slew of #SCOTUS opinions comes lots of great #legalwriting examples!
In Justice Kagan's Wooden v. U.S. opinion, let's break down three simple tools we can all use:
1. TLDR Intros
2. Simple Sentences
3. Trendy Transitions
1/x
In Justice Kagan's Wooden v. U.S. opinion, let's break down three simple tools we can all use:
1. TLDR Intros
2. Simple Sentences
3. Trendy Transitions
1/x
TLDR Intros (quick intros that dish the key points in a document) are now common with judges and lawyers alike.
How do the greats craft them?
1. Give readers context - why is this dispute here?
2. Insert choice details to prime
3. Highlight your legal pitch
How do the greats craft them?
1. Give readers context - why is this dispute here?
2. Insert choice details to prime
3. Highlight your legal pitch
In a paragraph, Justice Kagan orients you to the situation and highlights several charged facts:
(1) that the defendant faces a hefty 15-year sentence,
(2) that the lower court is piling on 20 years after the fact, and
(3) this was a single facility on a single evening.
(1) that the defendant faces a hefty 15-year sentence,
(2) that the lower court is piling on 20 years after the fact, and
(3) this was a single facility on a single evening.
Check out the cool writing choices made by the stellar #legalwriting teams at @WinstonLaw and @Kirkland_Ellis in this single-paragraph introduction kicking off a reply filed today.
Even replying, these pros package everything readers need into a powerfully-written package. 1/x
Even replying, these pros package everything readers need into a powerfully-written package. 1/x
Verbs chosen with care: Not what most would write (the statute is applicable only to...). Instead, the subject is an actor (the Supreme Court) and it's carrying out actions that push the advocacy points (narrowing, requiring, demanding, urging to criminalize...).
Choosing persuasive labels for concepts that push advocacy points. "Commonplace gratuities" hits differently than "payments," or even just plain "gratuities."
I recently had a #1L student who is about to start a judicial internship ask for some advice on how to get the most out of the experience.
As a former judicial intern, federal law clerk (x2), and now law professor, here are 7 tips:
As a former judicial intern, federal law clerk (x2), and now law professor, here are 7 tips:
1. Quality > Quantity. You'll be asked to draft documents for your judge. Even better, you won't be under the same time pressure as clerks. Just remember, you won't be judged by how fast you work or # of cases, but only on the quality of your work. Take the time. Do your best.
2. Be a Team Player. A judge's chambers is a team. That means you need to complete your own tasks, but also chip in wherever possible. Clerk seem stressed? Offer to help research. Deputy setting up the courtroom? Help. No task is too small, and people remember those who help.
A federal district court in North Carolina has ruled that 24 is not "double" 12. Ugh.
Folks, if your court rule says "double spaced," that rule should *not* come with the implied qualifier: "as defined by the people who design Microsoft Word."
But anyway, here goes... 1/
Folks, if your court rule says "double spaced," that rule should *not* come with the implied qualifier: "as defined by the people who design Microsoft Word."
But anyway, here goes... 1/
The Court reasons that because most word processing programs have a standard setting for "double" that might not be actually 2x the font size, the Court's rules incorporate that standard. (Note: Does every word processing program use the same spacing for that setting?) 2/
Ah yes, the "technical explanation" that 24 is actually double 12. It is, indeed, hard to quarrel with that! 3/
1 - This @ImmersionClinic, "How to Conclude a Brief," is based on an essay by @brian_wolfman available in full here: papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cf….
Tks to @RimaSirota for smart critique. #legalwriting #appellatetwitter #LRWProf
Tks to @RimaSirota for smart critique. #legalwriting #appellatetwitter #LRWProf
2 - cc: @howappealing @erinccarroll13 @LawProfTJ @Sherrileekeene @jlwherry @mjcedrone @KannonShanmugam @RMFifthCircuit
3 – I. Introduction
A while back, I observed a fleeting discussion among a few appellate-litigation mavens in the #appellatetwitter crowd about what should go in the “conclusion” section of an appellate brief.
A while back, I observed a fleeting discussion among a few appellate-litigation mavens in the #appellatetwitter crowd about what should go in the “conclusion” section of an appellate brief.
1. This @ImmersionClinic thread on parentheticals in legal briefs is based on an essay by @brian_wolfman available in full here: papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cf…). #legalwriting #appellatetwitter #LRWProf. [cont'd]
1.1. cc: @RimaSirorta @JonahPerlin @LawProfTJ @Sherrileekeene @ProfSueMcMahon @jlwherry @AWIonline @mjcedrone [cont'd]
2. Introduction
This long thread is a short essay on explanatory parentheticals in legal briefs. Yes, folks, it’s embarrassing, but you’re being offered gratuitous moralizing on parentheticals. [cont'd]
This long thread is a short essay on explanatory parentheticals in legal briefs. Yes, folks, it’s embarrassing, but you’re being offered gratuitous moralizing on parentheticals. [cont'd]
Got a little downtime today so let's talk about something near and dear to my heart: Brief aesthetics. #legalwriting
Briefs shouldn't just be substantively good; they should look the part, too. Why? Because judges & clerks are busy; they _will_ use imperfect heuristics to decide how much time to give your brief. That includes stuff we all hate—like bluebooking—& that also includes aesthetics.
A disclaimer: aesthetics is, of course, a matter of personal judgment. You may find some of the things I'm about to rag on, like big garish underlines, beautiful and soothing. That's your prerogative! What I offer are generalizations about most readers. YMMV.
Ok #appellatetwitter / #legalwriting fam.
There are so many great threads for law students and lawyers. But after a few days they disappear.
I am working on a way to compile and display them for posterity.
Reply👇 with your favorite lawyer advice 🧵 suggestions to add.
There are so many great threads for law students and lawyers. But after a few days they disappear.
I am working on a way to compile and display them for posterity.
Reply👇 with your favorite lawyer advice 🧵 suggestions to add.
I’ll start with a few @CecereCarl on writing.
The Dean @RMFifthCircuit on oral argument
Dear New #1Ls,
You are probably taking a course called #LegalWriting, Legal Practice, or Legal Analysis.
You may be thinking "I know how to write" or "I can sneak by this one" or "I'll just focus on other classes."
On day 1, I was like you.
Pro Tip: Don't be me.
🧵👇👇👇
You are probably taking a course called #LegalWriting, Legal Practice, or Legal Analysis.
You may be thinking "I know how to write" or "I can sneak by this one" or "I'll just focus on other classes."
On day 1, I was like you.
Pro Tip: Don't be me.
🧵👇👇👇
1/ So much of #1L year is learning to "think like a lawyer."
This course (full disclosure: I teach it at @GeorgetownLaw) introduces you how to write, read, analyze, research, and act like a lawyer (and some thinking too).
Do those skills sound important? They are.
This course (full disclosure: I teach it at @GeorgetownLaw) introduces you how to write, read, analyze, research, and act like a lawyer (and some thinking too).
Do those skills sound important? They are.
2/ It is essential to know what the law "says" and how the law got to where it did. But in law school and in practice if you cannot communicate that analysis in a way that legal readers (or other legal audience) expects all that hard work is wasted.
1/ Thread. Here are some of my appellate litigation rules. I try not to repeat stuff I’ve heard 1,000 times in CLE’s (like don’t mislead the court), but a few have slipped in. Some are in tension with others. That’s life.
-The side with the better story almost always wins.
-The side with the better story almost always wins.
2/ -The factual statement is the most important part of a brief.
-In a statutory interpretation case, the side with the shortest plausible brief insult likely win.
-Visit your client, even if they’re in prison, especially if they’re in prison.
-Listen to your client.
-In a statutory interpretation case, the side with the shortest plausible brief insult likely win.
-Visit your client, even if they’re in prison, especially if they’re in prison.
-Listen to your client.
3/ -Don’t file a writ where a motion will do.
-Writs are squirrelly things.
-Don’t file a motion where a notice will do.
-Always treat crime victims with respect. It’s the right thing to do, and rubbing salt in a victim’s wounds never helps your client.
-Writs are squirrelly things.
-Don’t file a motion where a notice will do.
-Always treat crime victims with respect. It’s the right thing to do, and rubbing salt in a victim’s wounds never helps your client.
One lesson I hope we learn from the #MuellerReport is that writing a lot of words on a lot of pages isn't the same as communicating. 2/
Mueller's central conclusions, especially on obstruction, were vague and confusing even to expert legal readers. /3
Okay, baby’s napping (on me, of course). Let’s do this. #MuellerReport. (Thread.)
Okay so perhaps the redactors could have used a style guide for consistency:
The first em dash appears in the second paragraph, so you know the document was written by lawyers. Also A+ for following the Bluebook rules on indicating alterations/omissions from quotations.
