Academic Legal Writing - Eugene Volokh [164]
6. Avoid redundancy—it makes your writing less clear and forceful, and of course it's especially bad when you're facing a strict page limit.
7. Avoid jargon, whether law-and-economics jargon, literary criticism jargon, critical legal studies jargon, or whatever else. Some readers won't understand it. Many will understand it, but will have to work hard to understand it, and will resent you for it. And some might understand it better than you do, and conclude that you've used it incorrectly.
8. Explain what is literally going on; avoid metaphors and other figurative usages unless they seem really helpful.
9. Don't make up your own abbreviations. If you're writing about the California Plum Marketing Act, don't call it the CPMA, even if you define the new abbreviation for the reader. Call it the Act, or the California Act, or something like that. Unfamiliar abbreviations make articles seem less accessible and interesting.
Remember that each of your graders will be reading a couple of dozen papers, all on the same topic. That's a boring, unpleasant job, and it makes people grumpy. When the readers see something unclear in your paper, they won't take the time and effort to figure out exactly what you're saying, and they won't give you the benefit of the doubt. They'll just mark you down. Conversely, the easier you make things for them, the more they'll like you.
i. Follow your legal writing instructors' advice
Follow the advice that your instructors gave you in your legal writing class, even if you don't fully agree with it. The graders were probably taught by the same instructors, and will likely follow the rules that those instructors taught.
j. Don't alienate the reader
Avoid (1) sarcasm, (2) snideness, (3) ad hominem attacks, and (4) political labels that some might see as unfair. If you're writing about a gun control issue, don't talk about “gun nuts” or “gun-grabbers.” If you're writing about abortion, it doesn't matter that you sincerely believe that pro-choice forces are baby-killers, or that pro-life forces are sexist theocrats. Put that out of your mind, and be scrupulously polite to both sides. Some of the people grading you will be pro-choice, and some will be pro-life. You can't afford to alienate either group.
Also, to the extent that you can, avoid making politically controversial substantive assertions. Don't shy away from those assertions that you need in order to support your claim. But don't pick any unnecessary political fights, for instance on tangential issues.
If you do have to make such a controversial statement, be sure to carefully support it, and to confront the counterarguments against it. Again, remember that some of the people grading your paper will strongly disagree with you. Even if you can't persuade them that you're right, you should at least show them that you're taking their side's arguments seriously.
You want to sound thoughtful, respectful, and careful, not self-righteous, contemptuous, or blinded by your moral passions. If you think some argument is too harsh or over-the-top, it probably is. The substance of your argument should be hard-hitting; but your tone should be mild.
k. Be modest
You also want to sound modest, though not noncommittal or too deferential. Be careful about emulating the style of accomplished and respected scholars—it might seem good when coming from them, but too arrogant when coming from a first-year law student.
“Only a deep philosophical understanding of the matter can help us avoid the errors that the Court makes” suggests that you are a deep philosopher, and that the Justices are shallow fools. Even if that's what you think, it's not what you should say.
Likewise, “This article will conclusively demonstrate that Professor X's views are flat wrong” sounds arrogant enough that it invites skeptical readers to look for ways in which your demonstration isn't conclusive, and X's views are possibly right. Better just to substantively support your position, and rebut the other side's, without