(Second in an intermitent series, see Step 1, "Have a Point" here.)
Use a Structure to Organize
The best way to make the point is to have an explicit framework outlining the document. Whether it is a skyscraper or a human being, there is a skeleton that serves as the framework supporting the structure. One good way to make the point is to make that framework visible. Since good legal writers work off of outlines, simply make this outline the visible framework to the reader, and you will quickly reinforce the point of your writing. In all three forms of legal writing, the structural support can be shown by the use of headings and labels identifying the sections, the various contentions of the parties and specific legal points or authority. A table of contents does the same thing for longer documents and is required by court rule in law and motion papers over 10 pages.
Give away the mystery in the introduction. It doesn't need to be boring. Here’s a colorful example of explaining structure by Jared Diamond, in his book, Collapse. In the book, he discusses the reasons for the failures of various civilizations. Here is how he shows the structure: “So that readers will have some advance idea where they are heading, here is how this book is organized. Its plan resembles a large boa constrictor that has swallowed two very large sheep.” He then says that two major portions of the book discuss modern Montana and Norse Greenland as major case studies--the two large sheep. Smaller sections of the book cover Easter Island, the Maya and Anasazi and modern Rwanda. His colorful outline accurately describes the book’s organization.
Furthermore, in persuasive legal writing, there should be an introduction that summarizes the arguments you are about to make. An example might read as follows:
“This motion for summary judgment argues:
1. Plaintiff is not a corporation authorized to do business by the Secretary of State;
2. Individuals do not have standing to prosecute this action on behalf of the corporation; and
3. The statute of limitations has expired.”
The judge, and the judge’s research attorney, both know after the first paragraph what the three main arguments will be. Unfortunately, most legal briefs begin with a dreary and lengthy compound sentence simply describing the parties with accompanying “hereinafters” with substantial written equivalent of throat clearing and “ahems.” Often a brief will have an introduction similar to:
“Comes now defendant X Box Corporation for itself and no other defendant
(hereinafter referred to as “X Box Corp.”) and brings the motion against
plaintiff’s first amended complaint of Alphabet Soup Corporation (hereinafter
“Alphabet Soup”) including a motion for summary judgment, or in the alternative
summary adjudication, of the issues on the first, second and third causes of
action as more fully and completely set forth in the accompanying memorandum
of points and authorities, papers, affidavits, exhibits and arguments that may be
permitted both oral and written.”
Boredom sets in before the point is ever made.
Helpful headings
The headings can also be argumentative themselves. When headings are used, they are often innocuously labeled “facts,” “statute of limitations,” or “plaintiff’s corporate status.” The headings should make their own point. Instead of “Statute of Limitations,” try “The Three Year Statute of Limitations Expired No Later than 2002, Two Years Prior to this Lawsuit.” Subheadings could then be stated as follows: “The Oral Statute of Limitations Expired in 2001.” The next subheading could be, “The Statute of Limitations for Fraud Expired in 2002.” And, the final subheading could be, “The Written Contract Statute of Limitations Expired in 2003.” The use of argumentative headings will reinforce the overall point and help to focus the written argument. The best part is that these are simply part of the original outline and it requires little extra work to be more persuasive and easier to comprehend.
With respect to informational writing, the same holds true. For example, a discussion of various legal courses of action and analyzing available options can be labeled, “1. Do Nothing,” “2. Arbitrate,” “3. Mediate,” “4. Litigate.” Under the pros and cons of each recommended course of action, all factual and legal issues such as choice of law, evidence and juror pools can be discussed with parallel subheadings as needed. The intended reader can get a grasp of the entire range of options, pros and cons, simply by looking at the headings. The structure of the headings serves to reinforce the advice being given.
In operative documents, either Roman numeral subheadings or some other numerical system with descriptive headings will assist the document’s users to quickly locate key provisions by reading descriptive headings labeled, for example, “attorney’s fees” or “arbitration in case of dispute.”
Conclusion
Showing the structure improves reading comprehension. Readers who comprehend will get the point. They are also more likely to retain information on the first reading and can easily navigate the documents on subsequent readings to find wha they need.
Comments