The Inside Scoop: What Federal Judges Really Think About the Way Lawyers Write
Kristen K. Robbins-Tiscione
Georgetown University Law Center
Journal of Legal Writing Institute, Vol. 8, p. 257, 2002
Georgetown Public Law Research Paper No. 1131267
A recent survey indicates that what troubles federal judges most is not what lawyers say but what they fail to say when writing briefs.
Although lawyers do a good job articulating legal issues and citing controlling, relevant legal authority, they are not doing enough with the law itself. Only fifty-six percent of the judges surveyed said that lawyers "always" or "usually" make their client's best arguments. Fifty-eight percent of the judges rated the quality of the legal analysis as just "good," as opposed to "excellent" or "very good." The problem seems to be that briefs lack rigorous analysis, and the bulk of the work is left to busy judges. Many judges also indicated that lawyers often make redundant or weak arguments that detract from the good ones. What judges really want is shorter, harder hitting briefs.
Number of Pages in PDF File: 29
Keywords: legal writing, judgesAccepted Paper Series
Date posted: May 9, 2008
© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
This page was processed by apollo3 in 0.500 seconds