如何提高英文法律文书的写作水平？

一方面，不要轻信什么“一小时就可以学到的” “终身受用”的法律写作技巧。就算是经过入学考试筛选的美国也要法学院学生，也要经历贯穿前两个学期的魔鬼式写作训练，很多人还会在第三、第四学期参加法学期刊的编辑工作或模拟法庭，两者都是写作密集型工作，这是一个漫长的积累过程。
另一方面，的确存在可以一以贯之的英语法律写作指导思路，这就是法学院写作课上一次次被强调的“IRAC”写作模式。
IRAC指的是四个要素的结合：
1. Issue, 法律问题：告诉读者，写下这段分析是要解决什么样的问题；
2. Rule, 规则：引述相关的法律规定或者判例，介绍相关的法律原则；
3. Analysis, 分析：结合事实，分析上述规则的适用问题；在所谓“三段论”的论述中，这就是将大前提（规则）和小前提（具体事实）相结合的部分；
4. Conclusion: 回答问题，可能是给出明确的是或否回答，也可能是承认问题的复杂性，充分揭示所有的可能性。
--
为方便理解，先用中文举个例子：在明尼苏达州，一名男子在接受强制戒酒期间，因为戒断反应出现了幻觉，误以为有人要闯入他的住宅，于是开枪自卫，结果打坏了邻居停在路旁的汽车。
为了回应辩护律师基于“暂时性精神失常”的辩护，检方提交法律备忘录就体现了IRAC的套路：
1. 问题：“戒断反应”能否构成刑法上的责任阻却事由？
2. 规则：明尼苏达州的法律（大明律）中某条规定，行为人如果因为精神失常，对自己的行为丧失辨别能力，则不需要对行为承担法律责任。然而，明尼苏达州最高法院某判例指出，如果被告自主，自愿地导致自己陷入精神失常的处境，则不能使用这一辩护理由。
3. 分析： 一方面，被告人并未完全对自己的形式丧失辨别能力，在接受讯问的时候，被告人能够清醒地交待自己使用了什么武器，对武器的杀伤力有认识，对可能导致的后果由预见力，因此不应适用大明律上述规定。另一方面，被告人因为自己自愿参与强制戒酒课程导致发生戒断反应，因此可以适用判例中对于“自愿陷入精神失常处境”的规定。
4. 结论：基于上述分析，被告人呢不存在责任阻却事由，应当承担法律责任。
--
下面举个英文的例子，这是我在法学院法律写作课程的成果。在这个虚构案例中，一名有易装癖的男护士被医院开除了，他声称自己是因为在工作场合着装的问题被开除的，认为这构成了“基于性别或性取向的歧视”，这里摘录我作为医院的代理人所写的“答辩状”一部分，节选了关于举证责任的内容。如果对阅读大段文字不感兴趣，可以重点参照括号中的解释：
Even if the alleged discrimination based on sexual orientation and non–conformance with gender stereotype is actionable under Title VII, Intuitive is still entitled to summary judgment in the light of McDonnell–Douglas framework. （段落开头其实是“结论”和“问题”部分的结合，既点出了这里要分析的问题，即在McDonnell-Douglas判例所确定的举证责任分配方式下，被告能否主张法院驳回起诉，也表明了本方的立场。）Under McDonnell–Douglas framework, the Plaintiff has the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of racial discrimination under Title VII, then the burden shifts to the employer to articulate some legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the employee's termination. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802 (1973). After the employer has met such burden of production, the burden then shifts back to plaintiff to show that the reason alleged by the employer is merely “a pretext for the sort of discrimination.” Id. at 804. The Plaintiff has the burden to prove “by a preponderance of the evidence that the legitimate reasons offered by the defendant were not its true reasons, but were a pretext for discrimination." Tex. Dep't of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 252–53 (1981). The Plaintiff may not meet such burden if the employer’s justifications are challenged with merely “irrelevant subjective assessments and opinions.” Griffith v. Schnitzer Steel Indus., 115 P.3d 1065, 1073 (2005). When the plaintiff has not met such burden, the case shall not be submitted to the jury, which would make the Defendant entitled to summary judgment. Id. （这里是规则部分，引述了相关判例，解释举证责任应该如何分配，具体分为三步：原告在一开始对存在歧视的可能性举证，作为被告的雇主随后对存在非歧视性的解雇原因举证，如果雇主能够举证，则原告需要对这些理由仅仅是表面借口承担举证责任）
In this case, assuming that the Plaintiff has met the initial burden to establish a prima facie case, Intuitive has respondent with reasonable justifications, that the termination is due to 1) poor job performance, which is reflected by the quarterly evaluations submitted by different supervisors that shows consistently dropping quality of work performance and 2) unprofessional and inappropriate behavior, including Plaintiff’s uncooperative attitude towards new job assignment, inadequate effort to adjust to new position and unprofessional dressing. （这是分析部分：承认原告已经完成了第一步的举证）
Intuitive has met its burden of production by providing justifications for the termination, it would then be the Plaintiff’s burden to challenge the justifications and provide evidence beyond “irrelevant subjective assessments and opinions.” Palintiff has failed to meet this burden. The strongest pieces of evidence the Plaintiff might provide were no more than some subjective speculations based on unfriendly comments and the posters in his locker. A reasonable jury could not possibly relate such highly subjective and fanciful reasoning to Intuitive’s decision of termination. （这里是分析部分的继续：指出被告已经完成了第二部分的举证，能够举出正当的解雇原因，而原告并未完成第三部分的举证，即不能对上述解释仅仅是雇主的借口进行举证）Viewed in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff, the relevance between such alleged facts and the termination could not reasonably exist, and the conclusion that the Plaintiff was fired because he was homosexual or did not act in conformance with gender stereotype is the Plaintiff’s own speculation and subjective opinion. Hence, the court should grant Intuitive’s motion for summary judgment, as no reasonable jury would conclude that the Plaintiff could overcome his burden of proof by evidence to effectively challenge Intuitive’s justification of termination. （结论：被告要求法院驳回起诉的主张应该得到支持。）
--
以上，只是一个非常粗略的框架思路，法律写作还离不开法律检索能力的支撑，这就是另一个很庞大的问题了，路漫漫而修远。