Twenty fonts and (we’re told) the cats who inspired them. Since I live with four cats, I’m obligated to link to this. Also we have a Persian that’s a dead ringer for # 6, except ours has two eyes (see photo at left). (Hat tip to Peter Athas.)
Today I did some long-overdue maintenance of my legal-writing blogroll. If you haven’t browsed the selections there, why not have a look? It’s just to the left, right under “Recent Comments.” Relatively recent additions include the following:
Over at Writing to Done, guest poster David Masters offers an interesting structure for an argument: PEEL, which stands for Point, Evidence, Evaluation, and Link.
In a recent decision, the U.S. Fourth Circuit reminds us to avoid disrespectful language in our briefs:
Finally, we feel compelled to note that advocates, including government lawyers, do themselves a disservice when their briefs contain disrespectful or uncivil language directed against the district court, the reviewing court, opposing counsel, parties, or witnesses.... Unfortunately, the government’s brief is replete with such language: it disdains the district court’s “abrupt handling” of Appellant’s first case ...; sarcastically refers to Appellant’s previous counsel’s “new-found appreciation for defendant’s mental abilities,” ...; criticizes the district court’s “oblique language” on an issue unrelated to this appeal ...; states that the district court opinion in Jones “revealed a crabby and complaining reaction to Project Exile,” ...; insinuates that the district court’s concerns “require[ ] a belief in the absurd that is similar in kind to embracing paranormal conspiracy theories,” ...; and accuses Appellant of being a “charlatan” and “exploit[ing] his identity as an African-American,” .... The government is reminded that such disrespectful and uncivil language will not be tolerated by this court.
U.S. v. Venable, No. 11-4216 n. 4 (4th Cir. Jan. 18, 2012). The lesson: If you think you have rapier wit, keep it sheathed when writing your brief.
(Hat tip to Martin Stern.)
I’m not dead set against block quotations. But I do think they’re overused, often as a substitute for legal analysis. Check out what Kendall Gray has to say about this topic.
They say that good writers have a way with words. Judge Bruce Selya of the federal First Circuit has a way with obscure words. And thank goodness for that. Although I advocate a preference for plain writing and simple words, plain language is not the first commandment. The first commandment is to be true to yourself—to express your self. (Two-word phrase intentional.) Judge Selya does that, which makes his writing a joy to read.
The other day, Jim Rusten wrote me about a recent opinion by Judge Selya. Jim compiled a list of interesting words in the decision, which you can access here. To read the decision itself, click here for the HTML version, or here for the PDF version.
The excellent Roy Peter Clark invites readers to spot the errors in this passage:
If the Romney team believed their own inevitability rhetoric, failing to invest for victory yesterday just as they did before South Carolina, that doesn’t auger well for their ability to make sound decisions later on.
Don’t be bashful. But don’t leave your comments here; leave them with Roy.
Here is a list of useful editing techniques by Kendall Gray, an appellate lawyer who blogs at The Appellate Record. (Hat tip to our friends at the Legal Writing Prof Blog.)
Dan Simons, of Invisible Gorilla fame, has a useful list of writing tips, including an editing checklist. You can find a link to Dan’s tips here. It’s meant for scientific writing, but it can be adapted to any form of expository prose. Just remember that Dan’s tips are general guidelines, not absolute rules.
For those unacquainted with the invisible gorilla, take this video test.