Index

Above the Law, 249 n9, 260 n17

Act of state doctrine example

dismissal motions, 210–211

organization of arguments, 164–165

Administrative proceedings example

advanced fact techniques, 42

procedural history, 30

Advanced fact techniques, 33–53

administrative proceedings example, 42

asylum example, 46–47

authorities, including, 44–45, 52

banking law example, 40–41

case law, 42

copyright infringement examples, 36–37, 44–45

errors by adversary, 52

extrinsic facts, use of, 46–47, 52

government contract example, 43

inconsistency of adversary, 53

legislative history, including, 43, 52

length considerations, 52

overview, 33

punitive damages example, 38–39

regulatory issues, 40–41

repairing client’s credibility, 38–39

serial plaintiff example, 34

statutory issues, 40–41

Ten Commandments example, 50–51

tone, use of, 50–51

undermining adversary’s credibility, 34, 36–37

unfamiliar terms and concepts, explanation of, 48–49

Adversaries

absence of facts in argument, 104–105

countering arguments of, 79–95.

credibility, undermining, 34

errors by, highlighting, 52

inconsistency of, highlighting, 53

making readers want adversary to lose, 6–7

opposing counsel, undermining credibility of, 36–37

own argument, use of against, 102–103

summaries of argument, rebuttal of argument in, 200–201

Affirmative action example, 154–155

Aldisert, Ruggero, 165, 192

Ambiguity, need to avoid, 258–259

Ambivalent authority, use of, 59, 68–69, 78

American Legal History Resources Research Guide (University of Michigan Law School Library), 157

Ames, Fisher, 153

Amicus briefs

appellate briefs, 227, 238–240

authorities, arguments based on, 66–67

Antitrust law examples

appellate briefs, 234–235, 238–239

authorities, arguments based on, 66–67

countering adversary’s arguments, 90–91

Appeals, procedural history of, 21

Appellate briefs, 227–241

amicus briefs, 227, 238–240

antitrust law examples, 234–235, 238–239

arguments in, 227, 232–233

certiorari petitions, 234–237

copyright infringement example, 236–237

counterstatements, 25, 227–229

discretion, encouraging court to exercise, 234–235

introductions in, 230–231

overview, 227

punitive damages example, 228–229

reply briefs, 227.

Applying facts in arguments, 97–111

absence of facts in adversary’s argument, 104–105

adversary’s own argument, use of against, 102–103

extrinsic facts, 110

footnotes, use of, 99

hearsay example, 102–103

hypotheticals, use of, 111

legal standards, demonstrating compliance with, 98–99

multimedia tools, use of, 106–107, 110

overinclusion of facts, 108–109

overview, 97

public records example, 100–101

record, mastering, 100–101

recusal example, 98–99

registered student organization example, 104

repetition to be avoided, 99, 110

settlement agreement example, 104

Ten Commandments example, 106–107

Arbitration example, 212–213

Argumentative headings, 7

Arguments, 55–157

in appellate briefs, 227

applying facts in, 97–111. See also Applying facts in arguments

authorities, arguments based on, 59–78. See also Authorities, arguments based on

countering adversary’s arguments, 79–95. See also Countering adversary’s arguments

CRAC. See CRAC (Conclusion, rule, application, conclusion) technique

historical arguments, 147–157. See also Historical arguments

legislative history, arguments based on, 125–134. See also Legislative history, arguments based on

organization of, 161–174. See also Organization of arguments

overview, 55–58

policy arguments, 135–146. See also Policy arguments

in reply briefs, 232–233

selection of. See Organization of arguments

stand-alone instrument, strength as, 207

summaries of argument, 193–207. See also Summaries of argument

textual arguments, 113–124. See also Textual arguments

Asylum example

advanced fact techniques, 46–47

basic fact techniques, 18–19

Authorities, arguments based on, 59–78

ambivalent authority, use of, 59, 68–69, 78

analogous principles, relying on, 74–75

antitrust law example, 66–67

Bluebook style, 71

cases not on point, 77–78

citizenship example, 60–61

“common sense,”71

controlling authority, emphasizing, 59–61

copyright infringement examples, 68–69, 72–73

CRAC (Conclusion, rule, application, conclusion) technique, 61, 63, 65

detail of cases, 76

doctrines, synthesizing, 59, 66–67

football cheating example, 62–63

footnotes, use of, 76

GPS search example, 74–75

key cases, 62–63

law reviews, 77

number of cases discussed, 64–65, 76

organization of, 76

other jurisdictions, citing precedent from, 63, 76–77

persuasive authority, use of, 59

punitive damages example, 70–71

quotations, use of, 59

regulations, 59, 72–73

Restatements, 59

statutes, 59, 72–73

string cites, use of, 59, 70–71

Takings Clause example, 64–65

timeliness of cases, 77

treatises, 77

warrantless search example, 74–75

Banking law example, 40–41

Basic fact techniques, 3–20

argumentative headings, 7

asylum example, 18–19

basic dispute, regarding, 10–11

best facts, emphasizing, 8–9

chronological organization of, 20

confronting damaging facts, 18–19

copyright infringement example, 6–7

disclosure of damaging facts, 20

formal tone, use of, 14–15

framing vs.

interest of reader, maintaining, 16–17

making readers want adversary to lose, 6–7

making readers want client to win, 3–5

overinclusion of facts, avoiding, 3, 20

overview, 3

punitive damages example, 12–13

recusal example, 8–9

self-defense example, 16–17

settlement agreement example, 10–11

“spin,”20

Takings Clause example, 4–5

terrorism example, 14–15

unpopular clients, representing, 3, 12–13

Berger, Linda, 35

Black’s Law Dictionary, 31

Bloomberg (database), 157

Bluebook style for string cites, 71

Bradbury, Ray, 254n12

Breyer, Stephen G., 13, 67

Briefs

appellate briefs, 227–241. See also Appellate briefs

arguments, 55–157. See alsoo Arguments

counterstatements, 25, 227–229

introductions, 193–207. See also Introductions

organization of arguments in, 161–174. See also Organization of arguments

overview, 159

questions presented, 175–192. See also Questions presented

reply briefs, 230–233, 240. See also Reply briefs

rules of court, 241

standard of review, discussing, 227, 240

statements of facts, 1–53. See also Statements of facts

strategies used in, 236–237

summaries of argument, 193–207.See also Summaries of argument

supplemental briefs, 227

writing tips, 262

Brudney, James, 118

Buffett, Warren, 35

Bullet points, 251, 252

Butterick, Matthew, 47

Camouflaging of arguments

legislative history, arguments based on, 130–131

policy arguments, 135

Campaign finance example, 230–231

Canons, 114, 115,118–119, 124

Certiorari petitions, 234–237

Chronological organization of facts, 20

Circumstantial evidence, arguments based on legislative history compared, 125

Citizenship example, 60–61

Clement, Paul, 186n6

Clients

credibility of, 38–39

disagreement with, 263

making readers want client to win, 3–5

unpopular clients, representing, 3, 12–13

Clinton, Hillary Rodham, 230

Clinton, William Jefferson, 28–29, 147, 235

Coleman, Brady, 191

Committee reports, arguments based on, 125–126

“Common sense,”71

Comparisons, 35

Compensatory damages example, 184–185

Concessions, avoiding, 83

Conclusion, rule, application, conclusion (CRAC) technique.

Confession example, 187

Confrontation Clause example, 178–179

Conjunctions, use of, 250

Contracts, textual arguments in interpretation of, 122–123

Controlling authority, emphasizing, 59–61

Copyright infringement examples

advanced fact techniques, 36–37, 44–45

appellate briefs, 236–237

authorities, arguments based on, 68–69, 72–73

basic fact techniques, 6–7

summaries of argument, 198–199, 204–205

Countering adversary’s arguments, 79–95

absence of authority, highlighting, 86–87

adverse controlling authority, dealing with, 95

affirmative arguments, importance of building first, 79

amicus briefs, 90–91

antitrust law example, 90–91

comprehensiveness of, 79, 95

concessions, avoiding, 83

CRAC (Conclusion, rule, application, conclusion) technique, 87

diminishing adverse authority, 79, 84–85

discrediting of authority, 95

distinguishing adverse authority, 79–83, 94–95

drug smuggling example, 84–85

exculpatory information example, 88–89

GPS search example, 92–93

with historical arguments, 147, 150–151

medicinal marijuana example, 82–83

overruling court’s own precedent, caution in advocating, 79, 92–93

overview, 79

prior inconsistencies, based on, 79

prior misdeeds of adversary, 79, 88–91

research, questioning, 79

settlement agreement example, 80–81

Tonnage Clause example, 86–87

warrantless search example, 92–93

Counterstatements, 25, 227–229

CRAC (Conclusion, rule, application, conclusion) technique

authorities, arguments based on, 61, 63, 65

countering adversary’s arguments, 87

overview, 56–58

reply briefs, 233

Custom, showing of, 147

Damages

compensatory damages example, 184–185

punitive damages example. See Punitive damages example

Damaging facts

confronting, 18–19

disclosure of, 20

Debt collection example, 222–223

Devorah, Carrie, 106–107

Dictionaries, use of in textual arguments, 114

Discovery example

nondispositive motions, 220–221

organization of arguments, 163

Discrediting of authority, 95

Dismissal motions

act of state doctrine example, 210–211

arbitration example, 212–213

complaints, studying, 210–211

overview, 209

procedural defenses, use of, 212–213

Doctrines, 114, 118–119, 124

Dogfighting example, 142–143

Drug smuggling example, 84–85

Editing by supervising attorney, 263

Einhorn, Elana, 187

The Elements of Legal Style (Garner), 11

The Elements of Style (Strunk & White), 261

Englert, Roy, 175, 184 n4

Eskridge, William, 118

Exclusio unius inclusio alterius, 119

Exculpatory information example, 88–89

Expert testimony example, 218–219

Extrinsic facts, use of

advanced fact techniques, 46–47, 52

applying facts in arguments, 110

Facts, 1–53

advanced fact techniques, 33–53.

applying in arguments, 97–111. See also Applying facts in arguments

basic fact techniques, 3–20.See also Basic fact techniques

introduction, inclusion in, 195

overview, 1

procedural history, 21–31. See also Procedural history

summaries of argument, inclusion in, 195

False statements example

policy arguments, 144–145

questions presented, 179

Familiar vs. unfamiliar information

in introduction, 195

placement of, 256–257

unfamiliar terms and concepts, explanation of, 48–49

Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, 192, 241

Firearms example, 185

First-person statements, 259

Fischer, Judith, 175 n2

Flammer, Sean, 247

“Flood gates” metaphor, 138

Footnotes

applying facts in arguments, 99

authorities, arguments based on, 76

Formal tone, 14–15

Framing

introductions, framing of dispute in, 197

questions presented, framing of issues in, 176

summarizing of facts vs., 3

Frey, Andrew, 184n4

“Friend of the court” briefs. See Amicus briefs

Garner, Bryan, 11, 52, 118, 247

Garrett, Elizabeth, 118

Gender discrimination example, 216–217

General canons, 122–123

Gerunds, 255

Ginsburg, Ruth Bader, 89

Gionfriddo, Jane Kent, 56n3

Google, 111

Government contracts example

advanced fact techniques, 43

questions presented, 189–190

GPS search example

authorities, arguments based on, 74–75

countering adversary’s arguments, 92–93

policy arguments, 140–141

Green, Jenna, 224

Guberman, Ross, 163, 252

Hand, Learned, 189

Hate crime example, 132–133

Headings in arguments, 174

Hearsay example, 102–103

Hedge fund example, 120–121

HeinOnline (database), 157

Henry, O., 235

Hiding identity of actor, 255, 256

Hill, Kashmir, 249 n9

Hirsch, Steve, 206

Historical arguments, 147–157

actions or other arguments, supporting by, 148–149

affirmative action example, 154–155

appropriateness of, 156

countering adversary’s arguments with, 147, 150–151

custom, showing of, 147

dryness of, 156

legislative history.

locating history, 147, 153, 156–157

necessity of, 156

overview, 147

Pledge of Allegiance example, 152–153

policy arguments, combining with, 147, 154–155

relevancy of, 157

in reply briefs, 233

research, 153, 156–157

resources, 157

sodomy law examples, 148–151

statutory construction, use in, 147, 152–153

validity of, 156

Holmes, Oliver Wendell, 1

Humor, 7

Hutchins, Renee M., 48–49

Hypotheticals, use of, 111

Implied preemption and arguments based on legislative history, 129

Indecent speech example, 179

Ineffective assistance of counsel example, 170–171

Introduction, 193–207

alternatives to, 195

facts, inclusion of, 195

framing of dispute in, 197

key facts and core principles in, 196

merger with summaries of argument, 195, 204–206

necessity of, 195

overview, 193–195

persuasive facts, frontloading of, 198–199

in reply briefs, 230–231

stand-alone instrument, strength as, 207

summaries of argument distinguished, 194, 195

theme of, 206

unfamiliar terms or concepts, 195

IRAC (Issue, rule, application, conclusion) technique, 56n1

Issues presented. See Questions presented

Jackson, Robert, 35

Jargon, 260

Jefferson, Thomas, 153

Judges

motions, considerations regarding particular judges, 209

nondispositive motions, considerations regarding particular judges, 222–223

organization of arguments, considerations regarding particular judges, 222–223

recusal example. See Recusal example

Kagan, Elena, 188

Kahneman, Daniel, 57, 245–246

Keisler, Peter, 29

Kennedy, Anthony, 141, 201

Kerr, Orin, 141

Kimble, Joseph, 247

Koh, Lucy, 221

Kozinski, Alex, 145, 263

Labor law example, 118–119

Law reviews, arguments based on, 77

Lebovits, Gerald, 247

Legal standards

adapting summary judgment motions to, 216–217

demonstrating compliance with, 98–99

Legal writing techniques, 245–263. See also Writing techniques

Legislation (Eskridge, Garrett, & Brudney), 118

Legislative history, arguments based on, 125–134

absence of legislative history, 133

ambiguous statutes, 125, 134

camouflaging of, 130–131

circumstantial evidence compared, 125

citeable materials, 134

committee reports, 125–126

corroboration of position by, 126–127

hate crime example, 132–133

implied preemption, 129

locating legislative history, 134

necessity of, 134

overview, 125

policy arguments, revealing, 128–129

prior drafts or versions, 125–126

punitive damages example, 130–131

single legislators, remarks of, 127, 131

state and local laws, 134

statutory history vs., 127

textual arguments, combining with, 114

torture example, 126–127

unlawful legislative motive, revealing, 132–134

vaccination example, 128–129

Lettering of arguments, 174

LEXIS, 157

Lincoln, Abraham, 35

Lists, use of, 250

Llewellyn, Karl, 52, 55, 247, 265–268

Long sentences, 247–248, 251

Making of Modern Law (archive), 157

“Meaningful variation,”119

Medicinal marijuana example, 82–83

“Meet and confer,”225

Messages per sentence, limit on, 248–249

Metaphors, 35

Military detention example, 181

Modifiers with nouns, 258

Monosyllabic verbs, 253–255, 279

Motions, 209–225

brevity of, 220–221

dismissal motions, 209–213, 224–225. See also Dismissal motions

length of, 224

“meet and confer,”225

merger of introductions and summaries of argument in, 195, 204–205

nondispositive motions, 209, 218–224. See also Nondispositive motions

overview, 209

particular judges, considerations regarding, 209

procedural history in, 31

summarizing cases in, 225

summary judgment motions, 209, 214–217. See also Summary judgment motions

teams of attorneys writing, 225

writing tips, 262

Multimedia tools, use of, 106–107, 110

Mystal, Elie, 249n9

Negatives, limiting use of, 260

Nominalizations, 255

Nondispositive motions, 218–224

critical facts, frontloading of, 218–219

debt collection example, 222–223

discovery example, 220–221

expert testimony example, 218–219

length of, 220–221, 224

overview, 209

particular judges, considerations regarding, 222–223

Numbering of arguments, 174

Obama, Barack, 145, 177, 217

“Obamacare” example

organization of arguments, 172–173

questions presented, 177–179

O’Connor, Sandra Day, 154

Oppenheimer, Daniel, 247

Opposing counsel, undermining credibility of, 36–37

Opposing parties. See Adversaries

Oracle, 111

“Ordinary meaning,” 116–117

Organization of arguments, 161–174

act of state doctrine example, 164–165

alternative arguments, 172–173

authorities, arguments based on, 76

discovery example, 163

headings, 174

ineffective assistance of counsel example, 170–171

lettering, 174

numbering, 174

“Obamacare” example, 172–173

overview, 161–162

particular judges, considerations regarding, 174

“primo” rule, 165

procedural issues, 162, 162n1, 168–169

punitive damages example, 166–167

recommendations regarding, 174

recusal example, 168–169

remedies, 170–171

subheadings, use of, 166–167

substantive issues, 162, 162n1, 168–171

table of contents, 161, 163–165, 172–173

textual arguments, 120–121, 124

Other jurisdictions, citing precedent from, 63, 76–77

Participles, use in sentences, 251, 255

Passport example, 202–203

Persuasive authority, use of, 59

Plain language movement, 260

Pledge of Allegiance example, 152–153

Point Made: How to Write Like the Nation’s Top Advocates (Guberman), 163, 252

Policy arguments, 135–146

arguing against, 146

benefit or harm, emphasizing, 136–137

brevity of, 135, 138

camouflaging of, 135

credibility of, 146

dogfighting example, 142–143

facts, combining with, 139

false statement example, 144–145

“flood gates” metaphor, 138

GPS search example, 140–141

historical arguments, combining with, 147, 154–155

legal rules, arguments regarding drawing of, 142–143

legal system, stressing consequences to, 138

legislative history, arguments based on revealing, 128–129

legislative vs. judicial power, 146

length of, 135, 138

overview, 135

recusal example, 138

“slippery slope” arguments, 140–141

subtlety of, 146

trademark infringement example, 139

video game example, 136–137

warrantless search example, 140–141

weaknesses in case, addressing by, 135, 144–145

Posner, Richard, 63, 106, 135

Post, Robert, 265

Potter, Harry, 111

Pregnancy discrimination example, 214–215

Prepositional phrases, 260

Present participles, use in sentences, 251, 255

“Primo” rule, 165, 192

Prior drafts or versions, arguments based on, 125–126

Privacy example, 187

Procedural history, 21–31

administrative proceedings example, 30

of appeals, 21

atmospheric details, 21, 26–27

counterstatements, 25

facts, treating similarly to, 22–23

in motions, 31

negative history, dealing with, 21, 28–29

overview, 21

positive history, emphasizing, 21, 24–25, 31

punitive damages example, 26–27

recusal example, 22–23

relevancy of, 21, 31

“strip-search” example, 24–25

subpoena example, 28–29

subtlety of, 23

verbs, use of, 21

Procedural issues, 162, 162n1, 168–169

Pronouns, 251

relative pronouns, 250

Public policy arguments. See Policy arguments

Public records example, 100–101

Punctuation, use of, 250

Punitive damages example

advanced fact techniques, 38–39

appellate briefs, 228–229

authorities, arguments based on, 70–71

basic fact techniques, 12–13

legislative history, arguments based on, 130–131

organization of arguments, 166–167

procedural history, 26–27

summaries of argument, 197

Questions presented, 175–192

aggressiveness of, 180–181

compensatory damages example, 184–185

confession example, 187

Confrontation Clause example, 178–179

false statement example, 179

firearms example, 185

framing of issues, 176

goals of, 176

government contract example, 189–190

indecent speech example, 179

as independent grounds, 190

insight and judgment in, 176

longer questions, 183–186

military detention example, 181

multiple issues, 189–190

necessity of, 176, 191

number of questions, 189–190, 192

“Obamacare” examples, 177–179

overview, 175–176

precision in, 176

“primo” rule, 192

privacy example, 187

removal of aliens example, 179

revising, 191

right to counsel example, 182

rules of court, 192

sentence length, 176, 187–188

Sentencing Guidelines example, 179

shorter questions, 177–182

sodomy law example, 190

supervising attorney, role of, 191

syllogisms, use of, 183–184

Takings Clause example, 185

Ten Commandments example, 182

Tenth Amendment example, 186

terrorism example, 188

Tonnage Clause example, 180

“whether,” beginning with, 191

Quotations, use of, 59

Reading Law (Scalia & Garner), 118

Reagan, Ronald, 35

Recusal example

applying facts in arguments, 98–99

basic fact techniques, 8–9

organization of arguments, 168–169

policy arguments, 138

procedural history, 22–23

questions presented, 183

Registered student organization example, 104

Regulations, arguments based on, 59, 72–73

Relative pronouns, 250

Relevancy

of historical arguments, 157

of procedural history, 21, 31

Removal of aliens example, 179

Repetition, avoiding

applying facts in arguments, 99, 110

summaries of argument, 206

Reply briefs

arguments in, 232–233

campaign finance example, 228–229

CRAC (Conclusion, rule, application, conclusion) technique, 233

historical arguments in, 233

introductions in, 230–231

necessity of, 240

overview, 227

Tonnage Clause example, 232–233

Research

of adversary, questioning, 79

historical arguments, 153, 156–157

textual arguments, 114

Restatements, arguments based on, 59

Rhetorical questions, 250

Right to counsel example, 182

Robbins, Ruth Anne, 47

Roberts, John G., 35, 70, 117, 184

Romney, Mitt, 35

Roosevelt, Franklin Delano, 35

Rules of court

briefs, 241

questions presented, 192

Rush, Benjamin, 153

Scalia, Antonin, 35, 118, 247–248n8

Schiess, Wayne, 187

Selection of arguments. See Organization of arguments

Self-defense example, 16–17

Sentence fragments, use of, 251

Sentences

complexity of, 245–246

lists, use of, 250

number of messages per sentence, 248–249

questions presented, sentence length in, 176, 187–188

short sentences, 247–248

topic sentences, strength of, 246, 252–253

varying structure of, 246, 249, 250–252

Sentencing Guidelines example, 179

Serial plaintiff example, 34

Settlement agreement example

applying facts in arguments, 104

basic fact techniques, 10–11

countering adversary’s arguments, 80–81

Short sentences, 247–248

“Signposts” to signal transitions, 246, 250

Single legislators, remarks of, 127, 131

“Slippery slope” arguments, 140–141

Sodomy law examples

historical arguments, 148–151

questions presented, 190

Something Wicked This Way Comes (Bradbury), 254n12

“Spin,”20

Spoliation of evidence example, 196

Standard of review, discussing, 227, 240

Standing, 34

State and local laws, legislative history, arguments based on, 134

Statements of facts, 1–53

advanced fact techniques, 33–53. See also Advanced fact techniques

basic fact techniques, 3–20. See also Basic fact techniques

overview, 1

procedural history, 21–31. See also Procedural history

Statements of issues. See Questions presented

Statutes, arguments based on, 59, 72–73

Statutory construction

historical arguments, use of, 147, 152–153

textual arguments. See Textual arguments

Statutory history, 127

Stevens, John Paul, 154

String cites, use of, 59, 70–71

“Strip-search” example, 24–25

Strunk & White’s The Elements of Style, 261

Subject-specific canons, 122–123

Subpoena example, 28–29

Substantive issues, 162, 162n1, 168–171

Summaries of argument, 193–207

abstract of argument in, 200–201

alternatives to, 195

brevity of, 195

copyright infringement examples, 198–199, 204–205

facts, inclusion of, 195

introductions distinguished, 194, 195

length of, 195

merger with introductions, 195, 204–206

multiple arguments in, 202–203

overview, 193–195

passport example, 202–203

punitive damages example, 196

rebuttal of adversary’s argument in, 200–201

repetition, avoiding, 206

spoliation of evidence example, 196

stand-alone instrument, strength as, 207

terrorism example, 200–201

Summary judgment motions

gender discrimination example, 216–217

key undisputed facts, frontloading of, 214–215

legal standards, adapting motions to, 216–217

overview, 209

pregnancy discrimination example, 214–215

Supervising attorneys

questions presented, role in, 191

writing techniques, role in, 262–263

Supplemental briefs, 227

Syllogisms, use of, 183–184

Table of contents, 161, 163–165, 172–173

Takings Clause example

authorities, arguments based on, 64–65

basic fact techniques, 4–5

questions presented, 185

Ten Commandments example

advanced fact techniques, 50–51

applying facts in arguments, 106–107

questions presented, 182

Tenth Amendment example, 186

Terrorism example

basic fact techniques, 14–15

questions presented, 188

summaries of argument, 200–201

Textual arguments, 113–124

canons and doctrines, 114, 118–119, 124

context, 114

contracts, interpretation of, 122–123

dictionaries, use of, 114

exclusio unius inclusio alterius, 119

general canons, 122–123

hedge fund example, 120–121

labor law example, 118–119

legislative history, arguments based on, combining with, 114

“meaningful variation,”119

“ordinary meaning,” 116–117

organization of, 120–121, 124

overview, 113–114

reprinting of statutes, 124

research, 114

subject-specific canons, 122–123

torture example, 116–117

“This,” ambiguous use of, 259

“Throat clearing” phrases, 259

Time management in writing, 262

Tone, use of

advanced fact techniques, 50–51

formal tone, 14–15

Tonnage Clause example

countering adversary’s arguments, 86–87

questions presented, 180

reply briefs, 232–233

Topic sentences, strength of, 246, 252–253, 271

Torture example

legislative history, 126–127

textual arguments, 116–117

Trademark infringement example, 139

Transitions, “signposts” to signal, 246, 250

Treatises, arguments based on, 77

Twain, Mark, 131

Twenty-five-word rule for sentence length, 247–248

Typography for Lawyers (Butterick), 47

Unfamiliar information. See Familiar vs. unfamiliar information

Unpopular clients, representing, 3, 12–13

Vaccination example, 128–129

Verbs

monosyllabic, 253–255

nominalizations vs., 255

passive verbs, 256

procedural history, use in, 21

strength of, 246, 253–255

subject and principal verb, placement of, 257–258

Video game example, 136–137

Walker, John, 52, 194

Westlaw, 157

Wistrich, Andrew, 1

Word choice, 259–260

Writer’s block, 263

Writing techniques, 245–263

ambiguity, need to avoid, 258–259

brevity and avoiding clutter, 246, 259–260

briefs, 262

clients, role of, 263

familiar vs. unfamiliar information, placement of, 256–257

motions, 262

nominalizations vs. verbs, 255

number of messages per sentence, 248–249

overview, 245–246

passive verbs, 256

sentence structure, 246, 249, 250–252

short sentences, use of, 246–248

“signposts,” 246, 250

spectrum of complexity, 245

style principles, breaking, 260–261

subject and principal verb, placement of, 257–258

supervising attorney, role of, 262–263

topic sentences, 246, 252–253

verbs, 246, 253–255

writer’s block, 263

Wydick, Richard, 247

Zinsser, William, 254