Writing Reply Briefs

"The Anatomy of an Effective Reply Brief," by Steffen N. Johnson, begins at page 29 of the Summer 2006 issue of Certworthy, the newsletter of the DRI Appellate Advocacy Committee.

The article contains many good tips like this one--

Your job . . . is to re-establish your theory of the case. In fact, by the time the judges have read the introduction to your reply brief, they should be singing your tune again, or at least remember what that tune is.

This is followed by two practical ways you can use to "get the judges refocused on the right issues and themes."

Certworthy is edited by Raymond Ward, who writes about other articles in the Summer issue at his weblog, the (new) legal writer. Thanks to reader Celia C. Elwell, a paralegal in Oklahoma City, for pointing me to the new issue of Certworthy.

Comments

[duck duck goose]

I am constantly amazed at how low the bar is for offering advice to lawyers. When it comes to advise on legal writing, I've had the same dull, vanilla advice foisted upon me since I was a 1-L.

Does the legal profession really need an article stating that the purpose of a brief is to convince the Court that you are right? Hopefully not. Any lawyer who does not instictively know this should probably focus on transactional work...or maybe another profession all together.

I find it interesting that an article titled "The Anatomy of an Effective Reply Brief" does not actually get around to discussing the actual anatomy of an effective reply brief. Instead, we are treated to such bon mots as "make it readable", "keep it as short as possible", and "write a compelling introduction". I have yet to meet a lawyer who is purposefully long-winded, rambling, and boring.

This kind of obvious advice reminds me of my Dad's instruction on how to play golf. All you have to do is hit the ball in the hole!

The shortcomings of this article are highlighted by the fact that it comes so close on the heels of the post from the Curmudgeon. The Curmudgeon set out specific and practical steps that anybody can follow.

Steffen N. Johnson, on the other hand, just advises us to hit the ball in the hole.

[Celia]

Mr. Goose, I respectfully suggest that you and I haven't been around the same lawyers. I have actually met legalese-loving attorneys who are purposefully long-winded, rambling, boring, overly repetitive, and grammatically challenged. These folks are the reason that the court have page number limits for briefs.

If the legal writing teachings received by L1s always took root, there would be no need for the constant admonitions to write in plain English, keep it short, and write so that you are understood, etc. You appear to be one of the lucky ones.