| 1. | When your position is supported by one or more controlling authorities, ensure that the court sees those sources early and clearly. Emphasize that your authorities compel an outcome, but also make readers want to follow those authorities. |
| 2. | When no controlling authorities support your argument, present relevant, helpful persuasive authorities. Omit any meek, self-conscious admissions that these sources are merely advisory. |
| 3. | When a critical authority can be read to support either party, make sure that the court sees it your way. |
| 4. | Quoting authorities concisely is helpful, but avoid block quotes. Many readers skip them altogether. |
| 5. | Supplement quotations by synthesizing and explaining doctrines so that the court sees why the authorities reached their conclusions. Quotations seek to restrict a court based on mere words, like a person who justifies a command by stating “Because I said so!” Showing the reasons for a command makes the point more persuasive. Quotes bark orders; reasoning makes readers want to follow them. |
| 6. | When a point is critical and disputed, you may wish to provide readers with a string cite — a list of multiple authorities — to show that your position has been accepted broadly. But do not add a string cite to substantiate an obvious or uncontested point. |
| 7. | When you cannot find satisfactory authorities to support a key proposition, show that the law has favored your position in analogous situations. |
| 8. | In addition to cases, search for other helpful authorities (statutes, regulations, treatises, and so on) that support your position. Too often, lawyers hunt only for cases. |
| 9. | Attune yourself to the relative value of various authorities and to how their value differs from case to case. For instance, Restatements are sometimes authoritative on unresolved issues of state law, but they exert far less sway on federal statutory issues. |