My friend Scott Stolley spotted an article saying that bad typography might be better for your brief. The theory is that if the readers have to work harder to read it, they will remember it better. Scott is skeptical, and so am I. Still, I’m all for airing views contrary to conventional wisdom. And if the theory holds water, maybe we should explore whether oral argument in a whiny voice is more effective.
Scott is a contributor to Texas Appellate Watch, a 3-month-old law blog. If you practice in Texas, you’ll want to follow it.
Even during appellate review of a dismissal for failure to state a claim, which takes place under a set of plaintiff-friendly guidelines, the reviewing court cannot be expected to do counsel's work, create the ossature for the argument, and put flesh on its bones.
Redondo-Borges v. U.S. Dept. of Hous. & Urban Dev., 421 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2005).
Without looking up the case, I’m guessing it’s written by Judge Selya. Ossature is a dead giveaway.
I don’t recall any other legal-writing article tackling the topic of Judge Lebovits’s latest: Responding to Interrogatories. So if responding to written discovery is something you do from time to time, you may want to read the article—you may pick up a tip or two.