Source: https://mariebuckley.com/tag/legal-writing/
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 12:24:15+00:00

Document:
Let’s continue with my top writing tips—the concrete techniques that I find myself referring to again and again as I coach lawyers one-to-one. Here is the next tip in the series and the running list is posted below. Stay tuned!
Lead with your conclusion. Lead from the top by putting your conclusion in the opening page and a half or, better yet, in the first paragraph. Again, the most important structural rule for any expository writing is to lead from the top and that includes having the courage to conclude. So be brave and take a stand in the opening of your paper.
1. Speak human. Write in plain English. If you would not use a word or phrase when speaking with a colleague, don’t use it in your writing. (By the way, plain English does not mean simple English. You are entitled to use your massive vocabulary, but use that vocabulary to convey nuance and precision—not to show off.) Here are more plain English tips.
2. Say your sentences out loud. Say each sentence aloud to edit for plain English and to cure clutter and awkward constructions. The best writing mimics the cadence and rhythm of human speech. Trust your ear.
3. Lead from the top. Your opening must establish your command of your subject and “prime” your reader by telling them what to look for. The opening must explain the facts, the problem, and your answer. You should open, at most, in a page and a half. The strongest writing opens in the first paragraph. Leading from the top is the most important rule of all and here is more on how to lead from the top.
P. S. These techniques are a nutshell summary of the key principles in my book, The Lawyer’s Essential Guide to Writing (ABA 2011). Follow the link to see what people have said about the book or to order it from the ABA, Amazon or Itunes.
Posted on These are some great tips. I have used all of the techniques above. I deeicdd that I prefer a loose outline structure, such as you. It works well for me because it gives me a general idea of where I want to go with the story, but allows for any changes to happen as I am writing. I often don’t know how the story ends either, but it usually wraps itself up nicely by the time I am done. Keep up the great information, it is very helpful!
Let’s continue with my top writing tips—the concrete techniques that I find myself referring to again and again as I coach lawyers. Here is the next tip in the series and the running list is posted below. Stay tuned!
Tip Two: Say Your Sentences Out Loud.
Say your sentences out loud. Say each sentence aloud to edit for plain English and to cure clutter and awkward constructions. The best writing mimics the cadence and rhythm of human speech. Trust your ear.
Writing is a discipline so it requires that you have efficient, disciplined work habits. Since you are being paid to write, you do not have the luxury of waiting for inspiration to strike. Like any professional writer, you must produce on demand. If you develop good writing habits, those habits will become ingrained and over time, you will find that writing becomes easier and faster.
We have already talked about the importance (and bliss!) of finding the “flow” and how working on a big screen will improve your productivity. Today, let’s talk about how to organize your thoughts before you start writing.
But Begin Writing Before You Have Finished Thinking.
You will learn about your topic by writing about it. So, while you must have some plan in place before you begin writing, that plan will change as you write. Let it change. If you stay flexible and open to new ideas while you write, your paper will become deeper and more relevant. And if you wait to start writing until you have finished thinking, you may never start writing at all.
Outlining works. It is a flexible, efficient tool for organizing your thoughts. But many lawyers avoid outlining, believing it requires them to have a global vision of their paper before they write. Instead, outline in piecemeal fashion while you write. Begin with the most obvious themes: What is your most important case or line of cases? What headings summarize those cases? Then work through your research, case by case, creating new headings and plugging cases into existing headings.
If you approach outlining as a tool, rather than a rigid guideline, outlining will give you control over your writing because it will keep you focused on the big picture. Again, the goal is to have a perfected outline in place by the time you finish writing.
Once you have finished writing and your outline is complete, use that outline as the master key for proofing the structure of your paper. If the outline is perfect, then so is the structure of your paper. The craft of legal writing becomes art through masterful use of structure and your finished outline is your best resource for fine-tuning structure.
The mind is a wonderful sifting device. If you let your ideas ferment in your brain, the cream will rise to the top. So begin outlining from memory. Your best ideas are probably the ones that come to mind first.
Use Your Research Files As an Outline.
If you have filed your research carefully, your filing system can also serve as your outline. Arrange your files in a logical order and order the cases or statutes within each file. The resulting order will resemble the dreaded linear outline and involves only a fraction of the effort involved in creating a linear outline from scratch.
I’ll post later about mind-mapping, creating a routine, and writing from the middle out. So stay tuned.
P.S. I did lots of thinking and outlining before I wrote my book, The Lawyer’s Essential Guide to Writing.
All good points, but as a professional writer myself I think that part of developing good habits is creating an environment where you’re able to write. Too many attorneys don’t have this oasis – they are too busy, they have too many distractions. (Not that I’m complaining, that’s why they hire me, after all!) For me, the routine that works is to plan what I’m going to write the day before, let it percolate in my mind, then hit it first thing the next morning. Crank up the music and churn it out.
Very good point, David. And many famous authors says that writing for a few hours first thing in the morning is the key to their routine. But I admire anyone who can write with music cranking. I need dead silence!
Avoid stuffy, academic language. Use familiar, concrete words instead. Here are some plain English alternatives to some common stuffy phrases.
Let me offer an explanation of the cause. Let me explain why.
Enclosed please find. . . . I have enclosed . . . .
Pursuant to our conversation . . . . As we discussed . . . .
Per your request . . . . As you asked . . . .
He was aware that . . . . He knew that . . . .
He shall have the ability to . . . . He can . . . .
So how stuffy are your words?
P.S. My book, The Lawyer’s Essential Guide to Writing: Proven Tools and Techniques has hardly any stuffy words.
Judges and senior attorneys want you to summarize the cases for them. Quote from cases only if the language is extremely significant.
The sentences that introduce your quotation should summarize the quoted language. For example, introduce a quotation with a sentence, such as In Smith v. Jones, the First Circuit also outlined the factors that determine whether more than a corrective disclosure is required. An effective introductory sentence spares the reader the agony of actually reading the quote. Avoid introducing quotations with bland phrases that tell nothing about the material to follow, such as In Smith v. Jones, the court held that. . . .
Long quotations beg not to be read. Readers love block quotes because the block format highlights just what part of the page they can skip. And skip it they will. If you must include a long quote, consider breaking it up into smaller parts so that you can keep it in your paragraph. Begin with The court stated that. . . . Continue with The court explained that. . . . Conclude with The Court cautioned that. . . .
But if you must quote a long passage, put it in a block.
If you must quote a passage of fifty words or more, set off that quote in block format: double space before and after the quote, single space within the quote and indent five or ten spaces at the left and right margins.
P. S. My Book, The Lawyer’s Essential Guide to Writing: Proven Tools and Techniques, contains many more scintillating tips like this!
Happy New Year! Let’s continue our series on how to present case law. We’ve talked about the lingo for discussing patterns in the case law. We’ve noted that skilled advocates don’t just list cases, they summarize a body of law and give a global picture of the research. And we’ve also talked about the three key issues in any case discussion. (Remember? Facts. Facts. Facts.) Now let’s talk about how to handle the elephant in the room—adverse case law. Your ethical obligations require that you mention it, but how do you talk about it without hurting your case?
Adverse case law rarely deserves a dedicated introductory sentence that flatly states its holding. If you break adverse case law into a separate section or paragraph, you may find yourself arguing the other side’s case, no matter how carefully you distinguish that law. Instead, weave opposing authority into your argument and present it offensively by using transitional words such as however and although.
For example, if you are arguing that the corporate veil should not be pierced, you should not begin your discussion of a case allowing a pierce by stating, In Jones v. Nasty Corp., the court pierced the corporate veil where Nasty Corp. was undercapitalized. Rather, explain that Although Jones v. Nasty Corp. allows a court to pierce the corporate veil where a corporation is undercapitalized, our client—unlike Nasty Corporation—is adequately capitalized. Couching troublesome authority in an although clause helps dilute its impact. For example, you might say that Although courts will pierce where the corporation has committed fraud, Client X never misrepresented its identity.
If you “wrap” your discussion of opposing authority with language that helps your case, you will meet your ethical obligations without losing control of your argument.
P. S. My Book, The Lawyer’s Essential Guide to Writing contains many fascinating tips like this!
The Three Key Questions in Any Case Discussion: Facts. Facts. Facts.
Let’s continue our series on how to present case law. Last week, we talked about how skilled advocates don’t just list cases, they summarize a body of law and give a global picture of the research. Earlier, I suggested lingo for discussing patterns in the case law. Today, let’s talk about the three key issues in any case discussion. Facts. Facts. Facts.
Focus on the Factual Results of the Cases.
Judges and senior attorneys already know the law cold. Your job is to explain how the law plays out in the real world of people and facts. Therefore, focus on the facts and results in the cases, rather than vague statements of law.
Where “a governmental intention to promote religion is clear,” Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578, 585 (1987), this Court has not hesitated to hold the challenged conduct unconstitutional. Thus, the Court has invalidated Louisiana’s creationism statute, Aguillard; struck down a Kentucky law requiring the posting of the Ten Commandments in public schools, Stone; struck down Alabama’s moment of silence statute, Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38 (1985); and held unconstitutional the mandated daily reading of Bible verses and the Lord’s Prayer in public schools, Abington Township Sch. Dist. v. Schempp, 374 U.S. (1963). Significantly, in each of these cases, this Court held that the challenged conduct was motivated by a religious purpose, and disregarded the government’s assertion of a sincere non-religious purpose.
Brief of ACLU in Opposition to Petition for Writ of Certiorari, McCreary v. ACLU, 545 U.S. 844 (2005) ( ACLU Brief, page 24-25).
Explain the Facts of Every Significant Case You Cite—Even If You Must Use a Parenthetical to Do So.
Never discuss a significant case without explaining its facts. In an ideal world, we would discuss all cases in prose and do away with cumbersome parentheticals. But parentheticals remain a useful, if imperfect, tool for preserving large bodies of research. They are the key to writing deep, substantive papers because they flesh out the factual and procedural context in which cases are decided and condense vast amounts of research into a small space.
So write a factual parenthetical every time you cite a case but don’t discuss that case in prose. (But you do not need factual parentheticals for cases that discuss boilerplate propositions of law, such as the standard of review or the burden of proof.) Although parentheticals admittedly slow the flow of your paper, the trained eye knows to peruse them quickly and their substantive benefit far outweighs the stylistic hiccup they create. Parentheticals are not perfect but using a parenthetical is better than losing the information.
The job of a parenthetical—like the job of sentences—is to add new substantive information. Your parentheticals will add value if they explain what actually happened in the cases.
Treadway Companies, 638 F. 2d at 380 (refusing to require cooling-off period where tender offer occurred four months after corrective disclosure).
W. A. Krueger Co. v. Kirkpatrick, Pettis, Etc., 466 F. Supp. 800, 803 (D.C. Neb. 1979) (action for damages is limited to actual sellers and purchasers).
General Aircraft v. Lampert, 556 F.2d 90 (1st. Cir. 1977) (action by target corporation under Section 13D; finding irreparable harm would occur only if investors were allowed to continue activities without correcting schedule 13D).
General Aircraft v. Lampert, 556 F.2d 90 (1st. Cir. 1977) (requiring shareholder to amend its Schedule 13D and enjoining further acquisitions until amendment was filed).
If a case summarizes a body of law, give an overview of the law and cite to the summary case with a parenthetical stating (collecting cases). Citing to the case that gives the overview of authority saves you the need to cite the historical cases individually. A parenthetical simply stating (same) may be appropriate in a string citation.
Don’t waste a parenthetical on simply quoting the part of the case that supports your previous prose sentence. The quote adds nothing new and suggests that you don’t trust your own prose paraphrase.
Coming next: The Art of Quoting Not Quoting.
P. S. from the Shameless Self-Promotion Department: My Book, The Lawyer’s Essential Guide to Writing: Proven Tools and Techniques (ABA, 2011) is chock full of tips like this and it would make a wonderful gift for your lawyer friends.
Handling case law is an art form and the lawyer who can do it well is not only an advocate, but an artist as well. So let’s talk about the techniques that skilled advocates use to present case law—techniques that lead to a deep and concise overview of large bodies of research. Their secret? Skilled advocates give an overview of a body of law, rather than simply listing cases.
Often the most important part of your research is what you did not find. If no court has ever ruled against your position, then you miss an opportunity if you simply cite the 1,001 cases that favor your position. Emphasize the absence of any opposing authority by stating, for example, that No court has ever declined to find personal jurisdiction over a defendant who maintained an office within its jurisdiction. If only two cases go against you, emphasize the paucity of opposing authority by explaining Only two reported cases have ruled that . . . . If the authority is split, search for the factual distinctions and, if you can, explain that The most analogous cases hold that . . . . If you are writing a research memorandum and no cases go your way, you must flatly disclose the absence of helpful authority.
Unlike in the fact section of a brief—where we often present the detailed facts in chronological order—you should not present your cases chronologically. Instead, give your readers a snapshot of current law by beginning with the most important or most recent cases. Provide historical context only if that context helps explain current law.
Your readers want to know immediately whether a case is the leading or most analogous case or whether it narrows a concept, states a different position, simply provides an example or repeats earlier information. Therefore, always assign a value or weight to the case by using signal phrases that show why you are citing that case. Use phrases such as in the leading case, in an analogous case, in particular, by contrast, however, for example, recently, also or again. But, again, be careful not to begin every sentence in a paragraph with a signal phrase or you will compromise the rhythm of your writing.
In Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School Dist. No. 1, 551 U.S. 701, 748 (2007), Justice Roberts summarized the law before Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka with a gifted economy of words. He explained simply, “Before Brown children were told where they could and could not go to school based on the color of their skin.” 551 U.S. at 747. If Justice Roberts can reduce decades of constitutional jurisprudence to a few pithy words, you should be able to discuss a statute-of-limitations case or the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil in a sentence or two.
We’ll talk another time about how to discuss the facts of cited cases. Prose or parenthetical? Stay tuned ….
P.S. My Book, The Lawyer’s Essential Guide to Writing: Proven Tools and Techniques (ABA, 2011), is full of fascinating tips like this. Order it here.
Colorful verbs convey images and add punch to your writing. Babies wail. Toddlers whine. Children fidget. Teenagers flirt. Hearts flutter. Later in life, traffic crawls, markets seize or melt and the right cars sip gas.
Many of your favorite childhood friends also depended on strong verbs. Remember when the wild things “roared their terrible roars and gnashed their terrible teeth and rolled their terrible eyes?” Of course you remember. You remember so well that I don’t need to remind you that this passage comes from Maurice Sendak’s Where the Wild Things Are. Strong verbs cement themselves in your memory.
And there are descriptive verbs for every phase in your life, including your years practicing law. Legislation may falter in the House or sail through Congress. Plaintiffs malinger. Defendants plead. Witnesses mumble, squirm, and duck questions. Other questions elicit responses. Courts admonish. Companies don’t simply fail to disclose losses. They hide those losses. And those losses then propel companies into dangerous financial positions, where they teeter on the verge of bankruptcy.
Colorful verbs can bring passion to judicial opinions, as well. Consider Justice Stevens’s dissent in Citizens United. There, Stevens lamented that “the majority blazes through our precedents. . . .” Citizens United v. Federal Election Com’n, 130 S. Ct. 876, 930 (2010) (Stevens dissenting).
Both life and the law happen in color so never settle for black and white verbs.
P.S. My book contains lots of strong verbs!
Italicize case names. Yes, italicize. Don’t underscore.
Old habits die hard. When I suggest that lawyers italicize case names, they often react in horror. But the modern preference is to italicize case names, rather than underscore, although either is correct. I know. You still don’t believe me. Since my word on this issue may not be enough to slant you (pun intended!) in the proper direction, here’s the reason why.
In the old days (before computers), lawyers underscored case names and introductory signals because typewriters and early word-processing programs could not italicize. So briefs that were professionally printed used italics, but briefs that were typed in-house had to make do with underscoring. Although most style manuals say that case names may be italicized or underscored, it makes sense to drop the obsolete convention of underscoring now that typewriters are being turned into jewelry.
The ultimate guru on all things related to the design of legal documents is Matthew Butterick. (His book, Typography for Lawyers, is groundbreaking. You should buy it.) He insists on italics for case names and also explains that the Bluebook does not require underscoring. Bryan Garner also endorses italics. And Supreme Court briefs use italics. Here’s an example: Supreme Court Brief using italics.
Italics follow the design principle of keeping the fonts on a page as simple and consistent as possible. Italics are just easier on the eye.
P.S. My book contains many other fascinating tips like this.
How to Be the Perfect Summer Associate.
So you are one of the lucky ones who landed a summer job. Nice office! Free coffee! The natives are friendly! But summers at law firms are no longer the professional equivalent of summer camp. In today’s economy, an offer is not guaranteed. You must show that you are worth hiring.
Write as if Your Offer Depends on It.
You cannot be an effective lawyer today if you cannot write. Because writing skills are so essential in the legal world, careers often rise—or fall—based on the ability to write. So firms rightly expect their young lawyers to be superb writers. Therefore, each writing assignment is an opportunity for you to show that you are a sharp thinker and a promising lawyer. Write as if your offer depends on your writing. Because it does.
Ask Questions. Write Down the Answers.
Writing is not just about a knack for writing clean, crisp sentences. In the legal world, writing turns on substance. You cannot write about your topic if you do not understand the background. So make sure you understand the Story behind your assignment. Who is your client? Who are the other players? How do they know each other? What went wrong or what are they trying to accomplish?
Ask intelligent, focused questions and write down the answers. Writing down the answers shows that you are paying close attention to the information.
Your colleagues will not have time to hold your hand or walk you step-by-step through your project. Ask enough questions so that you understand your assignment, but find the answers to simpler questions on your own. You must show that you can work independently, with minimal supervision, and return a perfect project.
The case file may contain a wealth of information that your colleague may not have had the time to share, so always review the case file to be sure you understand your project.
After you leave in August, the case will continue on without you. Imagine that your colleague must argue the case the week after you leave, but that he or she will not have time to prepare until the night before the argument. If you leave meticulous, carefully marked-up case files, your colleague will be forever grateful.
You should build that case file while you do your research. As you find your cases, mark them up and highlight them. Summarize the facts of the case in a two-word soundbite at the top of the case. Note the holding and the reasoning. Then file the cases carefully by topic and subtopic. File your cases based on fact-pattern. Keep files for your opponent’s authority and for cases that need to be distinguished. Within each file, put the most important cases at the top of the file.
If your cases are not filed in an obvious place, such as Westlaw or Nexis, make sure your colleague knows how to find your case file. If you file your cases electronically, email the file to the assigning lawyer.
The question of what makes for brilliant writing can’t be covered in a short blog post. (It took me a book to share all the tips I’ve learned as a writing coach.) But if you follow the Three Essential Rules for Strong Writing, your writing will sing.
2. Lead from the top.
You will win or lose your readers in the first page or so—or in the first paragraph. Therefore, the opening is the most important part of your paper and it should “lead” for the whole paper. An opening must explain three things: the background story, the issue, and your answer.
Let me say that last part again. Lead your paper with your answer. Put the answer in the first paragraph. Better yet, write it on neon lights or tattoo it on your forehead. And be brave and take a stand. Show that you have the confidence to reach a clean, authoritative answer.
Within the body of the paper, lead each section with a substantive heading and lead each paragraph with a short, introductory sentence.
3. Tell your reader what to do next.
Why did your colleague ask you to research this issue? What will she use the information for? What should the client do next? Always finish a paper by explaining what the reader should do next in the real world.
Dig Deeply Into the Cases.
Turn Your Work in On Time.
Your colleagues will love you—just love you!—if you turn your work in on time.
Ask for Feedback, But Take it Like a Grown Up.
And if the criticism is negative—errrr, constructive—don’t go off in a huff. Listen and learn. Say thank you. Then show that you can learn from that criticism by writing a brilliant paper next time.
No one wants to work with a prima donna or some other flavor of jerk. So show that you play well with others. Be smart and decent. Show that you are willing to work hard. Play nice. And have fun. If people think you enjoy your work, they will want to work with you.
P. S. My Book, The Lawyer’s Essential Guide to Writing (ABA 2011), would make a great gift for the summer associate in your life!
In my recent posts, I talked about the first two steps of deep editing. First, you must clean up your sentences. Second, you must edit for structure. Now, let’s talk about the final step—synthesis.
Step Back. Close Your Eyes. Breath Deeply. Open your New Eyes.
You cannot appreciate a Monet or a Chuck Close with your nose two inches from the canvas. You must walk to the other side of the room and get some distance to appreciate the whole painting. So, too, you must get distance on your writing once you are through the more mechanical sentence-level and structural edits. Put your paper down. Think. What are your one, two or three key points? Do they sing through? Is the “big picture” view of the research clear? Is the paper balanced? Or are you spending too much time on minor points and, therefore, sounding defensive? What facts work? Are you playing to those strengths? Are you arguing points that are not essential to winning your case and effectively increasing your burden of proof? Are you arguing too many points so that the paper reads like an issue-spotting law-school exam rather than a piece of advocacy for a client?
If your paper is a research memorandum, have you culled the research down? If you include too much information, your reader may find that it is easier to read the research file itself, rather than wade through your paper.
Finally, are you being intellectually honest about the weaknesses of your case? Is the tone confident and integral?
Ask a Colleague for Comments.
You have very smart friends. They are not only smart, they will also have a fresh perspective on your work. So ask a friend—preferably someone slightly senior—to review your paper. You’ll be amazed at how insightful the comments will be. Friends don’t let friends go unedited. And offer to return the favor. Editing the work of others will make you a better writer.
Take a long break—and get a good night’s sleep—before this final review. Writing ferments as it ages, so the more time you leave between writing and editing, the better your editing will be. Why? Because when you finish writing, you are still too close to your written words to judge them objectively. You need to put time between you and your writing, so that time can break your love affair with your own words. For this final edit, you must take off your writer’s hat and read as if you were a reader seeing your words for the first time. Only time will give you this objectivity. You will be amazed at your insight if you approach your deep editing from a healthy distance.
And that’s it. The three essential steps for deep editing. First, clean up your sentences. Second, edit for structure. Third, step back, play lawyer and make it sing.
I hope you found this series helpful!
P. S. My Book contains many more tips on writing.
As we discussed in an earlier post, the first step of deep editing is sentence-level editing. In sentence-level editing, you should say each sentence aloud to cure clutter and grammatical errors and to edit for plain English. Now, let’s move on to the second step of deep editing—structural editing.
The craft of legal writing becomes an art through the masterful use of structure and structural editing is your most important and most challenging task. Remember the Three Essential Rules for Writing? Of these three rules, leading from the top is perhaps the most important rule. It is also the essential rule for structural editing.
Since the opening is the most important part of any paper, begin your structural edit by focusing on the opening.
Does the paper “open” in the first page and a half? Or, better yet, the first paragraph?
Is the issue obvious from that background story? If not, have you spelled out the issue separately?
Does the paper lead with a strong, confident conclusion? Have you stated that conclusion in plain English? Is there a separate heading that screams Conclusion or Answer so that the reader can find the conclusion easily?
If the reader were to read only the opening, would the reader understand the paper?
Next, pull your headings onto a single page to be sure that your legal argument flows logically and leads from the top. Remember that headings represent a higher layer of writing than the body of your paper, so you should proof them separately to be sure that they reveal a strong foundation.
Does the paper lead with the most important arguments?
Are the main points highlighted with Roman numerals or primary headings?
Are subsidiary points identified by indented subheadings?
Does each heading lead logically into the next heading?
Do the headings run from general to specific?
Do the headings talk about people and events, rather than abstract legal theory?
Next, turn to the body of the paper—the Analysis or the Argument. Again, use your outline, as captured in your headings, as the master document for proofing and fine-tuning the structure of your paper. If your outline is perfect, then the structural foundations of your paper are also sound.
Does the Analysis or Argument support the conclusion?
Does each section begin with an opening paragraph or sentence that summarizes the conclusion about that section in one sentence?
Does each paragraph begin with a plain-English lead sentence that summarizes the paragraph?
Does every sentence within that paragraph support that topic sentence?
Do the paragraphs and sentences flow from general to specific?
Does the discussion of the case law clarify the “big picture” view of the research? Does it explain the weight of authority? The trends in the case law? The number of cases that address the issue?
Does the paper discuss the facts and result of the cases?
Finally, have you made recommendations and told your reader what to do next?
Now we have talked about the first two steps of deep editing—sentence-level editing and structural editing. Next, we’ll talk about the final and funnest step of all. Synthesis! I can hardly wait! Stay tuned ….
Proofreading and editing are different skills. Proofreading is the tedious, scientific task of making your paper error free. I’ve posted earlier about proofreading, including Eight Steps for Proofreading.
But let’s talk now about the art of editing. Deep editing is part of the art of writing. It is the kind of editing that a good writing coach might do for you and the kind that so many of us avoid. Deep editing requires a systematic attack on your paper and an objective eye. While you must still keep your writing hat on, you must approach your writing as if you were a reader—or a plastic surgeon. Deep editing is precise, surgical work and it requires a finely tuned aesthetic sense and a good ear.
First, carve out time for rigorous self-editing. Editing is the most important part of writing, so you are cheating yourself if you don’t build in time for editing. Professional writers are neurotic about self-editing, so they always leave time for editing. And editing will always take more time than you might think, so save a generous block of time.
Approach your paper as if you were a slightly deranged reader with a knife in hand. Deep editing is driven by substance and it requires you to review for structure, substance, sound, readability, appeal, clarity, and integrity.
You cannot edit effectively unless you can see what your work will look like to your reader. Edit at least once in hard copy. If you refuse to print for environmental reasons, then at least review your paper in Print Preview or Full Screen Reading View.
At this first stage of self-editing, your job is to focus on sentences and to cure clutter and check for plain English. Say each sentence aloud—if only in your head—to edit for plain English and to cure clutter and grammatical errors. If you are smart enough to make it through law school, the grammatical rules of modern English are embedded in your brain and ear. Saying your sentences aloud is the only tool an educated writer needs for effective sentence-level editing.
So read through your paper sentence by sentence and rely on your well-trained and unforgiving ear to weed out clutter and confusion. Click here for more tips on plain English editing.
Once you have finished sentence-level editing, you can begin editing for structure. I’ll post soon about structural editing, so stay tuned!
Use Pattern—Such As Parallel Construction—to Make Your Work More Readable.
What Is So Special About Pattern?
The human mind loves pattern. Poetry, for example, touches us through its rhythm, cadence and rhyme before it moves us with its meaning or symbolism. But patterns not only make a work appealing, patterns can also make a work more readable.
How? Once the reader senses a pattern in the writing, the reader begins to look for that pattern—unconsciously—and the pattern pulls the reader along. So strong writers exploit the human mind’s inherent love of pattern by using pattern to make a work flow.
The most common examples of pattern in legal writing are forms. Because we are so familiar with common legal forms, they make reading easier because we know where to look in the form for certain information. But don’t be enslaved to a form. Use a form only if it follows the three essential rules of writing.
Within our prose, the patterns may be subtle, but pattern is still a valuable tool. The key pattern in our prose is parallel construction.
If you begin a paragraph with a strong introductory sentence stating your conclusion about the law, your reader will become conditioned to look for that introductory sentence in following paragraphs. If you begin each section by stating your conclusion and then supporting and applying that conclusion to the facts, your reader will easily absorb later sections following a similar pattern. A section in which you discuss a rule then distinguish exceptions to the rule leads your reader to expect a similar order in later sections.
Once you have “conditioned” your reader by establishing a pattern, use that pattern consistently and your work will be more readable and accessible—even though your reader may not be consciously aware of the underlying pattern.
Honestly, it took me many years of coaching to understand this all-important principle, so I hope you find it helpful.
Discussing case law is an art form and shorthand phrases make your job easier, as long as you don’t slip into legalese. A case can be distinguishable, controlling, relevant, analogous, seminal or binding.
In Smith v. Jones, this Court squarely addressed. . . .
The First Circuit has long recognized. . . .
No reported cases hold that. . . .
Only one reported case holds that. . . .
The most analogous cases hold that. . . .
The Ninth Circuit has long expressed a strong preference for. . . .
Although this Court has expressed a strong preference for . . . , it has frequently allowed . . . under similar circumstances.
This Court has entertained. . . .
This Court has considered. . . .
This Court is poised. . . .
The Supreme Court has not been sympathetic to. . . .
This Court imposes. . . .
This District follows a recent trend. . . .
The court cautioned against. . . .
No court has directly addressed. . . .
As a general rule, the courts have. . . .
That decision represents an extreme departure from. . . .
I will not carry this trial bag any farther!
Further refers to extent or an abstract idea.
I won’t discuss it any further.
Believe it or not, my book contains a riveting section on worrisome words like these. Be the first on your block to know.
In the past few posts, we’ve talked about the good work habits that lead to fast, efficient writing. You know that you should work on a big, clean screen and avoid multitasking so that you can find the “flow.” You know that you should have a plan before you start writing. In this post, let’s talk about techniques for fending off writer’s block.
You will write more easily if you have a consistent routine. Do you need morning sun to charge your brain? Set aside morning time for writing. Does a messy desk sap your focus? Clean your desk. Can’t function without caffeine? Pour that coffee. If you have a consistent routine that works for you, use that routine to transition to writing mode quickly.
Stuck? Try thinking by hand on a blank unlined sheet of paper. (If you are a techie, draw on an iPad or other device.) Working with your hands, rather than on your computer, will force you to think on the right side of your brain. You’ll step outside a linear mode of thinking and see new connections between ideas.
Try to get your project on one page—a “work page” or a mind map. If you can’t get your thoughts down to one page, you have not yet identified your major themes and you don’t understand your project. Think of your work page as a loose master plan for your paper or the top layer of your writing. It should be an overview of your big ideas and a catalyst for the writing process, rather than a linear outline of your paper. And let your work page or mind map evolve as your write. Your goal is to make notes, rather than take notes.
Before you begin writing, find a good form or model to work from. If you are writing for a colleague, find a similar paper written by that person. Working from a form isn’t cheating. It’s efficient and smart. Your firm wants you to build on forms and models that have already been vetted and have an official seal of approval. Indeed, most law offices compile databases of models just for this purpose.
Write in Layers by Working from the Middle Out.
Writer’s block often begins with a misguided effort to write in a linear fashion, beginning at Point A and proceeding in an unbroken line to Point Z. But the process of writing is different than the process of reading. Although we want our readers to zip seamlessly through a paper in an unbroken line, legal argument—like Rome—is built in layers. Therefore, you may want to build your writing in layers, as well.
The “lead” sections of your paper are where you add the most value, but they are also the most difficult sections to write. So take shortcuts by writing the easier middle sections first because they are often straightforward case discussions. Layer on your top layers of thought—your opening, your headings, and your topic sentences—after you have written the easier middle sections.
Label each pod with a topic sentence. Next, determine the purpose of each pod. Ask yourself why you grouped certain cases together. The answer to that question becomes the opening sentence to your paragraph. Simply “label” each pod—and turn it into a paragraph—by “wrapping” it with your topic sentence.
Organize the paragraphs. Move and group paragraphs to find a coherent order. Work from general to specific, using successive paragraphs to narrow concepts down.
Layer on headings. After you have turned your pods into paragraphs and grouped paragraphs together, “wrap” those paragraph groups with substantive headings that explain why you grouped those paragraphs in one section.
Wrap your paper with your opening. Next, “wrap” the body of the paper with an opening that includes the factual background, the issue (if it’s not clear from the facts), and your conclusion.
Make recommendations. Finally, step back and tell your reader what to do next.
Or Write the Ending First.
Or write your concluding Recommendations section first. It will give you a goal to work toward.
Get Your First Draft on Paper Quickly.
Type your first draft as quickly as possible. Don’t fuss over details yet. Simply aim to create a working document.
Some writers try to write their first draft slowly, aiming for a more finished first product. Although slow drafting is not efficient for professional writing, in which speed and efficiency are so important, common techniques for “slow” writing include writing in longhand or writing with the less dominant hand. Frankly, I don’t recommend either technique.
Talk to Yourself As You Write.
If you use your first draft as a tool to “get it all down” or if you find yourself editing windy writing from a colleague, begin by separating the good from the bad. Work quickly through the paper, starring only those “Aha!” concepts that strike you as pivotal. Mark extraneous sentences with an X in the margin. Mark salvageable material with a question mark. Then rework the paper around those few concepts that you have starred.
Write Directly from Your Research Files.
An advocate’s job is to persuade a court that there is precedent for an argument, so precedent is the best place to start. Review your research files as you write. Build on the arguments and language you have already highlighted and labeled in the copied cases. Review the cases for factual analogies and focus on those facts as you write.
As you write, save deleted material to the clipboard and label it as deleted material. When you have finished writing, copy the deleted material into a separate document. You never know when you may want to retrieve your brilliant, but discarded, sentences.
On your mark! Get set! Write!
P.S. These posts (and more tips) are collected in My Book.
More Good Writing Habits: Think. Plan. Write. Think More. Plan more. Rewrite.
In the past few posts, we’ve talked about habits that lead to efficient writing, such as working on a Big Clean Screen and Finding the Flow. Today, let’s dig deeper and focus on the importance of planning before you write and refining that plan while you write. Here goes.
You will learn about your topic simply by writing about it. So, while you must have some plan in place before you begin writing, that plan will change as you write. Let it change. If you stay flexible and open to new ideas while you write, your paper will become deeper and more relevant. And if you wait to start writing until you have finished thinking, you may never start writing at all.
Outlining works. It is a flexible, efficient tool for organizing your thoughts. But many lawyers avoid outlining, believing it requires them to have a global vision of their paper before they write.
Instead, outline in piecemeal fashion while you write. Begin with the most obvious themes: What is your most important case or line of cases? What headings summarize those cases? Then work through your research, case by case, creating new headings and plugging cases into existing headings.
Once you have finished writing and your outline is complete, use that outline as the master key for proofing the structure of your paper. If the outline is perfect, then so is the structure of your paper. The craft of legal writing becomes art through masterful use of structure, so your finished outline is your best resource for fine-tuning structure.
If you have filed your research carefully, those files can also serve as your outline. Keep a careful filing system, with files for major topics and sub-files for lesser topics. Arrange the files in a logical order and order the cases or statutes within each file, as well. The resulting order will resemble the dreaded linear outline and involves only a fraction of the effort involved in creating a linear outline from scratch.
Next, we’ll talk about thinking with your hands, writing in layers, and talking to yourself while you write. (It helps to be a little bit crazy.) Stay tuned.
P.S. Chapter 12 of My book covers The Process of Writing and Overcoming Writer’s Block in more detail.
My clients often complain to me about how long it takes them to write their papers. I remind them that good writing takes time and care. But we all want to be faster, cleaner and skinnier—both in writing and in life. So this week we are talking about the discipline of writing. What are the habits that will help us to write more efficiently? Yesterday, we talked about Working On a Big, Clean Screen. Now that you are sitting calmly in front of your giant screen, what’s next?
Concentration is so intense that there is no attention left over to think about anything irrelevant, or to worry about problems. Self-consciousness disappears, and the sense of time becomes distorted. An activity that produces such experiences is so gratifying that people are willing to do it for its own sake, with little concern for what they will get out of it, even when it is difficult or dangerous.
Because writing is so demanding, you must set aside time to make it happen. Shut out the world, if only briefly. The essence of writing is reflection and a single block of uninterrupted time will make you productive and focused.
Try working in 45-minute segments, with a 15-minute break as the hour ends to turn to other tasks. 45/15 works like a charm for me. I can always focus my wandering mind for 45 minutes and email (and life) lose their hold during those writing minutes, because I know I have 15 minutes coming soon to turn life back on. When the next writing hour starts, I feel refreshed and sharp and I see things that I didn’t see when I stopped writing.
Don’t try to push your writing time much beyond and hour and a half. It’s hard to keep a sustained focus for hours and hours. And, in our busy professional lives, it’s not always wise or professional to expect the world to leave us alone for hours on end.
Yes, your colleagues expect you to check your email constantly unless you are Asleep or in a Tunnel and your employment contract prohibits sleeping anyway. But switching between tasks makes you less efficient, particularly with complicated tasks such as writing. A 2005 study, No Task Left Behind? Examining the Nature of Fragmented Work, found that office workers were interrupted an average of every 11 minutes and that, after each interruption, it took 25 minutes to return to the original task. Twenty-five minutes!
After being interrupted, you may not remember where you were in writing a paragraph or dissecting a case. Do you really have a half hour available to get back in your groove? Are minor interruptions, such as email, worth a half hour of your time? Turn off the incoming sound on e-mail so that you feel less like you are on call. Check email if you must, but limit yourself to once an hour. Try holding your phone calls and shutting the door.
And if you really can’t ignore the juicy little ping of email, use a program that shuts the damn thing down and saves you from yourself.
The Internet is irresistible. Resist. Resist. Resist. Disconnect while you write. The world will still be there when you return and no one will have even noticed that you were gone.
In my next posts, I’ll share more tips for whipping your writing life into shape. Stay tuned!
P.S. from the Shameless-Self-Promotion Department: My book is brimming with tips like this.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.