I used to write extensively, but due to my health, on good days I can
now only muster a handful of paragraphs. I have stretches of months on
end where all of my time is spent just reading, all input, and no chance
of even the smallest output without pain. It is infuriating.

I went for a dual major in English and Mathematics, so I'm not entirely
an autodidact in English, but I still like to believe my own study and
practice was more beneficial than directed study. At least, it feels
that way, but this is most likely due to cognitive bias.

I have multiple lawyers, judges, and justices in my family, as both
immediate and distant relatives. I enjoy case law and "reading law"
albeit I have no true aspirations towards becoming a lawyer. The idea
of "reading law" to become a lawyer is very tempting challenge, but
there's little point in becoming a lawyer when I can lose my ability to
write for long periods of time.

As a bit of a shut-in with too much time on his hands (pun intended), I
have read your posts for years, even longer than I've had this account.
Again, there was little point in joining HN when I could not post and
participate.

Your mastery of the English language has always been impressive, but far
more importantly, your mastery of the given subject matter is far more
impressive. You think well, and hence, you write well --not the other
way around.

In fast paced exchanges, you do not always take the time to read well.
But this is true of nearly everyone.

In my question to you in my previous post, instead of the term "spurred"
I could have easily used "inspired" or "caused" to lessen effect, or
alternatively used "incited" to give greater effect.

The subtle point being, I see this particular piece of your writing as
reactionary. The vast majority of written law (as I know it) and legal
correspondence (as I know it) is reactionary. Given the significant time
and effort you have obviously put into both reading and writing legal
related text, you have gained the habit of reaction and think in terms
of crafting correctly leveled response. It is the perfect mindset of a
lawyer doing their job, but there is more to writing itself.

In the case of this particular piece, it seemed as though something had
been bothering you for a long time, and finally escaped in a frustrated
reaction. I know that feeling far better than most since I live with it
building every day. Then again, it could simply be my own
externalization, a confirmation bias running rampant.

You did not have the luxury of English as your first language, so more
than most US lawyers, you had to work much harder to learn it. Those in
your profession who did not bother to learn beyond the basics they
already knew stand as an affront to the work you've invested in becoming
more proficient than they are. In short, they don't care when you do
care, and this kind of disparity is always annoying to the latter.

Your reaction was a correctly measured and level response, but if I read
it correctly, your real desire was to convince, express and instruct.
Instead of trying to write in a new and unfamiliar way, you fell back on
your training, or better said, your habits if you will, and wrote a
reactionary piece.

If per chance my analysis is not completely flawed, can you isolate in
your own mind the "last straw" that finally provoked you to react?

Take the time to write a full and harsh rant about the last straw with
the intent on never sharing it with anyone. The real goal is to get the
frustration out of your system rather than mask your frustration behind
a leveled response. You may think you vented already in your rough
drafts, but it's not out until it's out with a vengeance. Be vicious. It
really helps.

When you're done with the rant, rest. Sleep on it.

Now you can get back to the underlying problem; How do I convince others
in my profession to care about writing?

You'll first need to accept this will be an uphill battle. Lawyers are,
by definition, trained to convince others and trained to avoid being
convinced by others. Your target demographic is exceedingly difficult.
Both your reasoning and your rhetoric will need to be extraordinary to
have any lasting effect. You may need to stop thinking like a lawyer, or
thinking like a judge, or even thinking like a statesman to have your
desired effect.

In attempting to make your piece accessible to lay people, namely
clients, you are not merely helping all of us normal people, but you are
also leveraging your position with the lawyers you are trying to
convince. How else can you use leverage? I'm sure you have better ideas
than I do, but the bar association comes to mind, as well as the judges
and even the actual laws.

The major point I would like to make should be self-evident; we all have
writing habits, but the means and methods we normally use may not be well
suited for the task at hand. Taking a step back from our usual habits,
scrutinizing them, and finding our own biases can be very fruitful,
especially when you can see the need for another approach and you have
the courage to try something different.

I'm sorry but my hands are sore and I have to stop here. As always, it's
tough to show critical thinking without seeming overly critical, but I
hope this rough draft of my thoughts is of some use to you.