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."
Echoing words in a key sentence so that it stands out from the background. How many times have you read lawyers writing about "alleged quids"? Probably never. And so readers are likely to notice and remember.
Using examples to make powerful points. Noting that the punishment is "five times" as much as other provisions may not be legally relevant, but it's a choice example that makes hits hard.
Subtly weaving in policy-based details: Like mentioning that the government's pitch would create the "one" immune statute. And a hypothetical with a parade of horribles: If the government were correct...look at the bad things coming. These are simple tools you can apply!
This last one is so powerful when you can show that other settled cases would have turned out differently if only the lawyers had mentioned an argument...
I also love when legal writers suggest that the other side is arguing for the opposite of [insert thing we care about--policy, settled law, holding, congressional intent, and so on]
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
