Academic Legal Writing - Eugene Volokh [71]
The court's use of the “Long and Winding Road” and “procedural wall” metaphors coupled with the reference to Pink Floyd in this instance is counterproductive [because, among other things,] ... the court's use of metaphor does little to assist the reader in understanding the court's meaning in any meaningful way. If one of the purposes of metaphors is to allow people “to understand one phenomenon in relationship to another and to illuminate some salient details while shading others,” the “Long and Winding Road” metaphor just barely serves this purpose.
Litigation often takes a lot of twists and turns and may take a long time. We get it. There is nothing particularly wrong with [t]he Beatles metaphor; however, if one assumes that one of the purposes of metaphors is to make a point in a more concise manner, then the inclusion of the metaphor fails this purpose....
Contrast that example with the California courts' use of the “you don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows” metaphor used to explain under what circumstances expert testimony is required. [This observation has become almost boilerplate included in the decisions of the California appellate courts when ruling on when ... expert testimony before a jury is required. According to a California appellate court, Dylan states “the correct rule,” and the California courts are simply in harmony with his statement of the law.]
The metaphor is effective in that it serves the purpose of metaphors by “making abstract concepts more concrete” and aids in understanding; the court's use of it is also pretty darn funny. Both the inherent truthfulness and applicability of Dylan's statement are so spot-on that even one who dislikes or is ambivalent toward Dylan would be hard pressed to quibble about a court's use of the phrase.
This is precisely right: The “long and winding road” and “brick in the wall” allusions add no support to the argument. Maybe they'll amuse some readers, but they're probably more likely to annoy, precisely because they're needless distractions.
But the “you don't need a weatherman” line does support the argument. It crisply captures a truth (we can understand some things without calling on experts) that's closely connected to the legal question at hand. This makes the author's point more vivid, and more likely to come across as witty.
The same also applies to epigraphs: Use them only after you've thought hard about whether the quote is genuinely apt.
R. Abbreviations
Abbreviations (such as SSA, FIFO, DBA, TLA, and so on) tend to make a work less accessible, at least to readers who aren't already thoroughly familiar with the abbreviations. This is especially so if a reader sees several such abbreviations on the same page.
Some abbreviations are unavoidable, and are so standard that most readers won't really notice them; everyone knows about the EPA and the FCC, and most people who read about religious freedom law know about RFRA (the Religious Freedom Restoration Act). Calling these entities by something other than their abbreviations will be jarring and unnecessarily wordy.
But don't create your own abbreviations, and try to avoid using preexisting abbreviations that are relatively unfamiliar to most readers. For instance, if you're writing about the Gun Free School Zones Act, don't call it GFSZA—call it “the Act,” since it's probably the only Act you'll be discussing in detail. If you're talking about slippery slope arguments, don't call them SSAs; spell out the phrase, or just say “such arguments” if your meaning is clear from context. Shorter is usually better, but not when you get brevity by making the article seem forbidding to casual readers.
XV. WRITING: RHETORICAL PROBLEMS TO WATCH FOR
A. Unduly Harsh Criticism
Be understated in your criticisms, even if they're well founded. Don't call your opponents' arguments “fraudulent,” “nonsense,” “ridiculous,” “silly,” or even