Academic Legal Writing - Eugene Volokh [168]
Nearly all first drafts include redundancy—the same idea needlessly repeated, often in consecutive paragraphs or even consecutive sentences. As you're thinking about some theory you like, you'll naturally express it in two or more similar ways. But mercilessly cut such redundancy, and the other kinds of flab (see Parts XIII.A–XIII.C, pp. 119–120 for more details on that). They take up valuable space, they add nothing to the analysis, and they make your paper look vacuous and cliché.
So the good news: Because there's always fat to be trimmed, you don't have to panic when the first draft is too long. The bad news: If you don't trim the fat, you'll be marked down for bad writing even if your draft is not too long.
Also keep alert for facts and legal principles that seemed relevant when you first read through the materials, but that ultimately end up not being important to your particular proposal. This material will bore or distract the reader, and will take up space you can use for arguments that are much more closely tied to your claim.
c. As you cut the fat, watch to preserve the meat
Many write-on competitions dramatically limit the length of your submission, both to keep you focused and to save work for the graders. This format necessarily prevents you from going into things very deeply. Don't worry too much about this lack of depth. But at the same time, make sure that you cut wisely, and that the remainder includes at least the core of your argument, the core support for that argument, a discussion of the counterarguments, and some concrete examples.
d. Take particular care in editing the Introduction
The Introduction will set the tone for the rest of your grader's experience with your paper. If it's readable and organized, it will put your grader in a good (and perhaps even forgiving) mood.
Also check the Introduction to make sure that it reflects your final thinking on the subject. Often your claim will have changed from the time you start your draft to the time you finish it. Change the Introduction accordingly.
e. Check the substance and the structure as well as the form
Both your logic and your language should be perfect. Think “solid”: You want the reader to think “Well, that's a solid argument.” In a writeon competition, it's better to aim for “solid” than to aim for “that's a brilliant argument.”
This means that there shouldn't be any loose ends: no holes in the logic, no important arguments omitted or unanswered, no unsupported assertions. For every significant assertion you make, ask yourself “why?”—why is this assertion accurate? If your text doesn't answer that, then it's not solid. Likewise, for every significant assertion you make, ask yourself “why not?”—what counterarguments might there be to this assertion?
To be solid, your piece should also be well-structured: It shouldn't meander from one subject to another and then back to the first, or deal with unrelated points in the same subsection.
f. Check for consistency
As you edit the article, make sure that all parts are consistent with each other. If you propose a new test, or synthesize a test from the precedents, do you always articulate the test the same way? If you criticize a court for doing something—for instance, for departing from the statutory text—are you sure that you aren't guilty of that yourself?
g. Proofread the footnotes or endnotes as well as the text
Make sure the prose in the footnotes is correct, and the citations are properly bluebooked.
Do not rely on citation formats that are used in the sources that you're given to read. Court opinions generally don't follow law review citation style. Law review articles may have been published in journals that use a different citation