In Plain English
When weaving emotional arguments into legal logic
Remember to focus your fire, use writing techniques that add
drama and force, and have faith in the quality of your
argument.
By Mary Barnard Ray
A year ago I wrote about the importance of laying out your logic
carefully and clearly. (Please see, "Logic and the Legal Reader,"
70 Wis. Law. 28 (Feb. 1997).) When writing to legal readers, you do not
want to violate that logic for any emotional reason. However, you also
do not want to neglect the human interest and common sense of fairness.
These elements breathe life into your documents, for a dry logical
argument is a sorry thing to have to read.
This column focuses on how to weave emotion into the logical fabric
of your argument. (How much emotion or how often is a topic for another
column.) To weave in emotional arguments, remember three things: focus,
force, and faith.
![](/SiteCollectionImages/WisconsinLawyer/1998/03/ray.gif) |
Mary Barnard Ray is a legal writing lecturer and
director of the Legal Writing Individualized Instruction Services at the
U.W. Law School. She has taught writing workshops and offered individual
sessions for law students; she also taught advanced writing and
commenting and conferencing techniques in the training course for the
legal writing teaching assistants. She has taught and spoken nationally
at many seminars and conferences of legal and college writing
instructors. Her publications include two coauthored legal writing
books, Getting It Right and Getting It Written and Beyond
the Basics, published by West Publishing Co. |
Focus. Do not work in every emotionally favorable
fact that you have, like the cranky coworker who carps about every
little problem. Instead, focus on the few key facts that are both
emotionally favorable and significant, given the reasoning of your
logical argument. Focus on including these facts at the various points
where they are appropriate, and spend your energy wording them
skillfully. Focus your fire.
Force. Persuasive legal writing is slightly more
formal than ordinary speech, which appropriately reflects the
seriousness of the matter being argued. For that reason, you can use
more formal emphatic tools without sounding pompous. Take advantage of
this. Use repetition, parallel structure, or interrupting phrases -
techniques that add drama and emphasis.
Repetition. The defendant company failed to schedule
routine maintenance for the press, failed to have a technician check the
press after operators had complained, and failed to warn the plaintiff
of the machine's malfunctions.
Parallel structure. In Samson, the landlord
had been asked by tenants to replace burnt-out light bulbs in a
stairwell, but had refused to do so. Similarly, Mr. Tyler had been asked
to place higher wattage light bulbs in the stairwell, but had refused to
do so.
Interrupting phrases. Driving across a bridge over a
flooding stream, unlike passing in a no-passing zone, is not an act of
"wanton disregard" for safety.
Faith. Have a little faith in yourself, your reader,
and your argument. In legal persuasion, quality is more effective than
quantity. Thus after you have chosen the forceful writing techniques you
want to use, state them as effectively as you can and stop. Return to
your tight, if dry, logical argument. Do not keep every dramatic phrase
that appeals to you.
If you do feel an irresistible urge to throw in additional phrasing,
do so with gusto: Add the word "damnably" or "damnable" with every
addition, as in "He was damnably fearful for his life" or "Her damnable
screaming startled the damnably frail and damnably vulnerable
plaintiff." This enables you to find all these phrases easily the next
day, so you can get them out of your system and out of your brief.
From the Mailbag
"Different from" or "different than"?
Q: My understanding of your December
column is that, after a paragraph discussing each pet peeve, you
then, at the bullet point, include an example of proper usage. However,
in the example you use "different than," notwithstanding your
comment in the previous paragraph that "different from" is the
best choice.
Did I catch you? Or is that example supposed to be one of the few
instances where "different than" can be used? (In my opinion, one should
never use "different than.")
A: Yes. you are exactly right about that example; it was reversed. My
only consolation is that I also saw the problem as soon as I saw the
article in print.
In my opinion, you also are right about "different than." I have yet
to see a time when it would be the right choice, although one or two
books I read claim otherwise.
If you have a writing problem that you can't
resolve, send your question to Ms. Ray, c/o
Wisconsin Lawyer, State Bar of Wisconsin, P.O. Box 7158, Madison, WI
53707-7158. Or, email your
question. Your question and Ms. Ray's response will be published in
this column. Readers who object to their names being mentioned should
state so in their letters.
Wisconsin Lawyer