Legal
Writing Class Notes
It
will be about 12 or 13 weeks. Our final
memos are due by the time the semester ends.
Say
we’re competent writers: how do we apply that to legal writing?
There
are two main assignments that come out of this class: (1) the office memo and (2)
the trial court brief. The issues
invoked will be similar, but the brief will be more complex and will require
more independent research. The memo will
be less of an open assignment than the brief.
In other words, we’ll have more latitude in looking up the case law in
the second assignment that the first.
The structure of the course
We’ll
basically talk about how to write for
about four weeks. Then we’ll write working
drafts of memos which we’ll review with
The roles of a lawyer
Predicting
– Office memos predict an outcome. This is also the kind of writing you usually
do on law school exams.
Persuading
– A brief, directed usually at a judge, is a form of persuasive writing.
Forms of legal reasoning
What
do lawyers really do when they write an office memo or trial brief? There are some basic types of reasoning they’ll
use to try to persuade a judge or jury.
When
you use rule-based reasoning, you
must first figure out just what the rule is.
If the rule is a statute, for example, it will be easy to pick out. It’s harder to pick out the rule from case
law. Once you know the rule, you can use
the rule to solve the problem at hand.
In a predictive memo you say: “If you do this, then based on these authorities
this will probably happen.”
Analogical reasoning is something we’ve done all
our lives. You look for similarities
between the authorities and the case at hand.
You say: “The facts of this case are like the facts of the case where
the rule comes from.” Notice how this is
similar to rule-based reasoning.
Counter-analogical reasoning is just the opposite. You point out the differences between the
facts of the case at hand and the facts the case where the rule comes
from. This is something you will want to
do if the rule is bad for your client.
You say: “Sure, that was the rule in that case, and if it were applied
to this case I would lose. But this case
isn’t like that case.” This is what we
do when we say that a certain case or hypothetical is distinguishable from an authoritative case.
Policy-based reasoning goes along with
counter-analogical reasoning. “Say the
rule is X. Let’s also say that the rule
was created to eliminate behavior Y. But
what we have in the present case is behavior Z, which is not the behavior we
were trying to prevent. In fact, it
might be behavior society wants to encourage.
Therefore, we should not enforce rule X in the case of behavior Z.”
Narrative reasoning is frequently seen in
closing arguments on TV trials. You
persuade the listener by telling a story in a compelling way so that your story
has a gut appeal. You have the chance to
color your case and client with whatever characteristics they have which are
most appealing or favorable. Take Hawkins v. McGee for example: you could
spin the story to make the grafting doctor a right bastard. But that doesn’t have much to do with a
particular rule of law. But it does have
persuasive value. The doctor has
encouraged activity that turns out to be harmful to someone else.
The ethics of predictive
writing
In
an office memo, when you’re trying to set out the facts and predict the
outcome, you need objectivity and honesty.
It wouldn’t be right to spin the memo towards your client. You don’t want to pursue a case when there’s
no chance to win.
Think
out of the box! Use diligence! Do research to determine if you can make a
case in a certain way. Figure out if it’s
worthwhile to even bring the suit: are there actual damages? There might be a wrongdoer, but if there are
no damages or slim damages it might not be worthwhile to bring a suit. Is it worth suing City Hall if you’re a contractor
and half your business comes from the city?
Maybe not.
You may not want to bite the hand that feeds you.
Plagiarism
When
do you have to give credit to your sources?
You need to attribute ideas that are not your own to the source of the
ideas. You also need to use quote marks
to show that the particular words chosen came from another source.
Next
week, we’ll be required to separate into small groups. This classroom isn’t terribly conducive to
doing that.