When I was young, I could not believe how poorly so many of the briefs and papers were written. After all, these were graduates of top law schools and colleges who should have known better. I have learned over the years that a legal brief should not be a dry, stuffy exercise in legalese, but must entertain or engage the judge(s) in addition to writing a cogent, comprehensible, and persuasive legal argument. Judges read hundreds of briefs and the majority of them are simply dull and boring. A judge wants a brief that will challenge his or her intelligence, educate him or her on points of law that he or she is not familiar with, and will keep his or her attention on the brief and make him or her want to read more. So many briefs that I have seen simply repeat material and make arguments that I've seen in a hundred other briefs that it is no surprise that judges get bored reading briefs. When you write a brief, ask yourself, "Is this something that grabs my personal and intellectual attention?" "Is it interesting and well-written and makes me want to read the next sentence, the next paragraph, etc.?" The point of writing a good brief is not only to inform the judge of your position, but also to make the judge want to read your brief carefully, rather than just skim over it as another futile exercise in litigation. Make your brief interesting as well as persuasive and you will find your results to be much more rewarding than if you just write a standard brief merely reciting the law.
Print Page
No comments:
Post a Comment