Well, from the perspective of a student, I’d say first that grammar (at least to the extent of things like “their” versus “there” versus “they’re”), spelling, and style should always be taught, and in fact I didn’t intend to imply otherwise in my initial post. Part of the reason I didn’t offer to become an ASP leader for a Legal Writing class, despite the suggestion that I’d be good at it, is that if I had to read 30-40 papers of misspellings and terrible grammar . . . well, at the very least, I wouldn’t be pleasant. So, on that note, I envy the Legal Writing faculty’s sanity when dealing with this.

That being said, I absolutely believe that the reason some students hate legal writing is exactly what you’ve suggested, Professor Blemberg: they can’t hear their own voice in the paper, and thus they become detached from it. The rule I’ve always followed from the day I started writing papers–and the rule I’ve been telling some of my 1L friends who have asked me–is that formality and one’s voice aren’t mutually exclusive, and I think that needs to be emphasized more. Now, that doesn’t necessarily mean you write in shorthand or curse or any of the things I’ve actually seen people do in papers, and it definitely doesn’t mean you can’t do that within the context of IRAC or CREAC or whatever formula you like. But Professors Greipp and Julien made it clear to my LWR classes that we should always write with an eye to answering two questions:
1.) “Why should the reader care?”
2.) “How can I explain this in words someone WITHOUT a legal background can understand?”

And, really, how can you answer those questions if you don’t own the topic AND the way it’s expressed? I don’t mean to suggest the Legal Writing faculty doesn’t make an effort to show this. It’s just that 1Ls are often too scared and overwhelmed to get the message, and thus it may have to be hammered home. It might be worth bringing in a speaker or two a semester to talk about how they succeed in doing that, if only because students tend to (unfairly) distinguish between a professor and a practitioner.

If we teach a student to write using a formula (a whole ‘nother can of worms) and then have the student conform to a very formal style, does the student lose her voice?

If a student can’t “hear” her voice in a paper, does she feel disconnected from her work? Taken a step further, does she feel disconnected from law school or the legal profession?

I feel like I fib a little when I say a legal audience will expect a high degree of formality and perfect English in writing.

At the same time, truly bad grammar and style is not professional.

I struggle to find the balance. And I’m open to advice!

But the initial point made in this blog, which is likely to be lost in the inevitable Palin discussion, is something I’ve been thinking about lately as well. In the criminal courts in Milwaukee County, hundreds of motions are filed every day that use common idioms that are supposedly not appropriate for legal writing, such as “an if-the-shoe-fits mentality,” “a needle in a haystack,” “going out on a limb,” etc. I’m starting to wonder if the proper sentence structure/language argument made in LWR classes isn’t really only applicable to appellate briefs, the lone environment left in this court system where formality seems to still trump expediency.