1. Craft your Table of Contents/headings so that each level of heading or subheading functions as a syllogism that proves a larger point.
2/10
2. Introduce your client or position with well-chosen nouns and verbs. Subtle narrative choices here put the defendant/petitioner in the best possible light.
3/10
3. See that blockbuster 98/100 #BriefCatch "Crispy and Punchy" Score? It's no accident.
Favor short, punchy words like these and logical signposts to make for a smoother, faster ride.
4/9
4. Examples are priceless—but only if the court sees the link without having to work.
5/10
5. Quoted language is a means to an end. Favor short snippets, and let your own points and facts dominate.
6/10
6. Help your points and sections cohere by linking the start of one paragraph with something the reader will remember from the paragraph before.
7/10
7. When you use the "Why Should I Care?" technique, as I describe it in Point Made, anchor your "parade of horribles" in your legal analysis.
8/10
8. Stay classy. There's a gulf between "That was mistaken" and "The Court was clearly wrong."
9/10
Bonus tip:
To vary your sentence structure, shake loose from this pattern: "Someone noted/observed/stated that something."
could have helped even this rockstar brief in that regard. Want to take your writing to the next level? your draft today!
Lesson Two: Rigid subject-verb-object sentence patterns can get boring. Yet what's impressive here is how much variety in sentence structure Barrett attains in such a short space. In fact, no two sentences have the same structure.
How about a litigation battle over . . . what "double-spacing" means?
66 pages of motions, oppositions, declarations (including one from Typography-for-Lawyers guru Matt Butterick!), & ruler-laden exhibits all over whether "double-space" means 24 points or 28.
1/5 #legalwriting
I prompted ChatGPT-4 to summarize the parties' key arguments in this pressing matter.
One way the election litigation could do good: a national moment of silence in which all 330 million of us UNCHECK THE SPELL-CHECK BOX THAT SAYS IGNORE WORDS IN UPPERCASE washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/…
Other inspirational reminders, in the @Atul_Gawande Checklist Manifesto style: Match the right corporate-naming-rights-for-cash venue to the right city.
Justice Gorsuch manages to pack a lot of #gorsuchstyle into tonight's one-paragraph dissent. He shows personality and verve in his potshot at Vegas and hedonism and in the final sentence (the Caesars Palace/ Calvary Chapel quip brilliantly distills all three dissents). 1/
Yet even in just a single paragraph he can't resist overexplaining. "The large numbers are fine" point is redundant, and it sucks the life out of the compelling contrast between the huddling craps and roulette players and the banned religious services. "Show, don't tell." 2/
And yes, even in this lone paragraph you can see his idiosyncratic syntax. Not sure exactly what he was going for after the dash, but I think he means something like "no matter HOW LARGE the building, HOW DISTANT the individuals, or HOW PERVASIVE the masks. 3/