the (new) legal writer

Distractions

Here’s an interesting article by Leigh Jones in the National Law Journal about the current state of legal writing (not good) and one possible contributing cause (electronic distraction).¹ I can relate. This past week I was working on a reply brief: reviewing the record (again), researching the law, outlining, and writing. All the while, the e-mails kept pouring in, and every now and then the phone would ring.

In the old days, e-mail was not a normal, universal means of communication. And research was done in the library, not at your desk next to your phone. So there were far fewer distractions to interrupt the work. Today, I do most of my legal research by computer in my office, where the phone is nearby and where the computer screen notifies me each time a new e-mail arrives.

What to do? For myself, I’ve found that one way to keep my head in the brief is to ignore the e-mail, at least until a break in the action. E-mails that arrive in the morning are read and responded to either just before or just after lunch. E-mails that arrive in the afternoon are read and responded to during a mid-afternoon break or at the end of the working day. This custom does not stop the phone from ringing, but it does reduce the number of distractions to a tolerable level.

When I really need to shut out all distractions, including the phone, I bring my work home. I make technology my friend instead of my enemy, using voice-mail or the Web to periodically check my phone messages, and using the Web or my Blackberry to periodically check my e-mail.

There is a trade-off here. It’s important to be accessible to clients and colleagues who call or e-mail. But sometimes you’ve just got to do what is necessary to get the brief written. And sometimes immersion in the project is the only way to get it done.

__________
¹ Hat tip to What About Clients?

Q&A with Justice Scalia

C-Span Q&A has posted the transcript of an interview with Justice Antonin Scalia by Brian Lamb. It includes some of Justice Scalia’s thoughts about legal writing and oral argument. (Hat tip to Legal Writing Prof Blog.)

Two propositions

Here are two propositions to ponder. One day I will write an essay on one or the other or both. But “one day” has been a long time coming, and may yet be a long time coming. So I’ve decided to go ahead and air them now, without supporting reasons, to see what you think. Here goes:

1. Every lawyer is presumed to be full of bullshit until he or she proves otherwise.


2. Argument is not the same as persuasion. Argument, properly done, is necessary to persuasion. But argument alone does not persuade. Improper or inappropriate argument impedes persuasion.

Comments, anyone?

The glamour of grammar

Roy Peter Clark, author of Writing Tools, is beginning The Glamour of Grammar, a twice-weekly series of blog posts to eventually be transformed into a book. Writing Tools started out the same way, so TGOG has the burden of living up to high expectations. To monitor Roy’s work in progress and to contribute constructive criticism along the way, check Roy’s blog every Tuesday and Thursday until further notice.

Plain language: It takes an act of Congress

Congress is moving toward making plain language “the standard style for Government documents issued to the public, and for other purposes.” H.R. 3548 passed in the House on April 14 by a vote 0f 376 to 1. Its companion, S. 2291, is pending in the Senate.¹ You can read the full text of the House bill here, and the Senate bill here.

Hat tip to Roy Jacobsen.

___________

¹ Co-sponsors of S. 2291 include Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.