Who Needs Words Anymore?

Posted by:
Category: Legal Writing, Public
Leave a Comment »

emoji press releaseMy worst fear has been realized: we can now stop writing in words.

Last week, Chevy issued a press release written entirely in emoji (except for its hashtag line #ChevyGoesEmoji). Emoji are the little graphics that appear all over the digital world. You’ve probably gotten emails or text messages that include them: a thumbs up sign; a little yellow smiley or angry or sad face; a dog; etc. I’ve done a screen capture of a portion of that release that you can see above. According to one journalist, the press release was “utterly incomprehensible.”

The press release introduced the 2016 Chevy Cruze and seemed to be an attempt to appeal to millennials—the younger generation generally born between the early 1980s to the early 2000s. While the company released its English translation the following day, those in media attempted to decipher the emoji version. Read more »

Print Friendly



Persuading People Who Don’t Want to Be Persuaded

Posted by:
Category: Legal Writing, Public
1 Comment »

I just finished a recent book by Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner. If the names Levitt and Dubner sound familiar, it’s because you may have heard of their popular (and interesting) Freakonomics books (here and here). In the book I just finished, Think Like a Freak, Levitt and Dubner set out to teach readers how to “retrain [their] brain[s]” so that they, too, can “think like a freak.” The book defines what it means to “think like a freak” (it’s not a bad thing; it’s critical and curious thinking with a twist), and offers its step-by-step guide. But one chapters stuck out to me as particularly relevant to lawyers (and law students): How to Persuade People Who Don’t Want to Be Persuaded.

Now, the easy thought here is that this advice will apply to brief writing. And, yes, that’s true, but I think we can think of persuasion more broadly. Even a lawyer’s “objective” work has an element of persuasion to it. A demand letter must “persuade” its reader to comply; an internal office memo must “persuade” its reader that the analysis is the correct (or at least best) one.

So, what do Levitt and Dubner say?

First, we must “understand how hard persuasion will be—and why” (168). Read more »

Print Friendly



The Necessity of Revising

Posted by:
Category: Legal Writing, Public
1 Comment »

keep-calm-and-revise-11I had a student a couple of years ago who described herself as a “one-sit wonder.” That is, in all of her previous schooling, she was quite adept at pounding out a more than serviceable paper in one sitting. Once she arrived in law school, she realized that style of writing was probably not going to work. (And, to be fair, it probably shouldn’t work in any other setting, either, but I do realize that it’s the way most students do write.)

There’s rarely anyone who can pound out what should be considered “final copy” in one sitting. Really good writers realize that writing is a process; the point of that first draft is to give you something to revise. In the writing process, you should be leaving behind a trail of drafts, some of them quite rough, before you finally arrive at the polished final copy.

Why is it important—no, necessary—to revise? Read more »

Print Friendly



Enhancing Credibility in Brief Writing by Using Oral Argument Techniques

Posted by:
Category: Legal Writing, Public
1 Comment »

This semester in Professor Susan Bay’s Advanced Legal Writing course, Rhetoric and Persuasion, our class discussed the means of persuasion: logos, pathos and ethos. Ethos immediately intrigued me because I could not grasp how to employ ethos in brief writing. One legal scholar, Professor Kirsten K. Davis, explains ethos as “classically considered the ‘persuasive force of a person’s character.’” In one word, ethos can be defined as credibility. Reading articles from legal scholars like Professor Davis helped, but I still was missing a connection. And then it occurred to me that I had been familiar with credibility, just in a different branch of advocacy: oral arguments.

My understanding of oral arguments stems from my participation in Moot Court. I am proud to be a Moot Court enthusiast. I did not know about it until Professor Rebecca Blemberg recommended that my 1L Legal Writing, Analysis and Research classmates and I attend the semi-finals and finals of the Jenkins Honors Moot Court Competition. I was awestruck by the oralists. I vividly recall standing with Professor Blemberg, telling her that I could never recite law or formulate an oral argument the way those students did. To my great surprise, one year later, I competed in the Jenkins Competition.

Through participating in the Appellate Writing and Advocacy course as a student and as a student coach, the Jenkins Competition as a competitor and a student coach, and the National Moot Court Competition as a competitor, I have received and shared advice about how to be a credible advocate at the podium. Here are some ideas about credibility that transcend oral arguments, and that you can apply to your own brief writing.

Respect Your Audience.

Respecting your audience is one way to earn credibility. Just as an oralist does in oral arguments, use proper form when addressing courts in your brief (i.e. the court you are writing to is written as “This Court should,” and a court you are writing about should be written as “The court in Smith”). You can also show respect for your reader and earn your reader’s respect by being respectful to others. Address strong counterarguments or, if you are responding, then the opposing counsel’s strong arguments, and provide specific reasons why those arguments are flawed whether it be because of logic, fact, or policy. Read more »

Print Friendly



Congratulations to Marquette’s 2015 Giles Sutherland Rich Moot Court Teams

Posted by:
Category: Intellectual Property Law, Legal Writing, Marquette Law School, Public
Leave a Comment »

Congratulations to 3Ls Ariel Dade and Keith Reese-Kelly for reaching the quarterfinals of the Giles Sutherland Rich Memorial Moot Court Competition regionals in Atlanta. 3Ls Brian Brockman and Nathan Cromer also competed, and Professor Kali Murray served as the teams’ faculty advisor. The teams were coached by Attorneys Ryann Beck, Garet Galster, and David Hanson. This year’s competition problem involved two issues: first, the proper definition of a claim, and second, the public availability status of a printed publication.

Print Friendly



Congratulations to the 2015 Jenkins Competition Winners

Posted by:
Category: Legal Writing, Marquette Law School, Public
Leave a Comment »

Jenkins 2015 2Congratulations to the winners of the 2015 Jenkins Honors Moot Court Competition, Larissa Dallman and Nicole Ways. Congratulations also go to finalists Mary Ellis and Natalie Schiferl, who additionally won the Franz C. Eschweiler Prize for Best Brief.  Nicole Ways won the Ramon A. Klitzke Prize for Best Oralist.

The competitors argued before a large audience in the Appellate Courtroom. Presiding over the final round were Hon. Albert Diaz, Hon. Pamela Pepper, and Hon. Timothy Greeley.

Read more »

Print Friendly



Want to Be a Better Writer? Then Read

Posted by:
Category: Legal Writing, Public
1 Comment »

reading-a-bookGood writers are good readers. And they’re readers of more than just internet posts; good writers read a variety of books, from fiction to nonfiction and from classics to contemporaries.

It is through all of this reading that we can see what words other writers use and, importantly, how they use them. We can absorb certain turns of phrases that we may later find useful, and we can “hear” the different voices writers use to speak to us. If we’re moved by some particular writing, we can try to figure out why and learn how to incorporate those ideas into our own writing. Reading also improves our vocabulary. It’s easy, when you’re reading, to gloss over an unfamiliar word, but the better thing to do is to look up any word you don’t know. But perhaps one of its biggest and best perks: reading is great stress relief. Read more »

Print Friendly



Congratulations to the 2015 Jenkins Honors Moot Court Competition Finalists

Posted by:
Category: Legal Writing, Marquette Law School, Public
Leave a Comment »

Congratulations to this year’s Jenkins Honors Moot Court Competition finalists: Larissa Dallman, Mary Ellis, Natalie Schiferl, and Nicole Ways. All the competitors presented strong oral arguments tonight.

Thank you to the judges of the semifinal round: Hon. William Callahan, Hon. Patricia Gorence, Hon. Nancy Joseph, Hon. Joan Kessler, Hon. JoAnne Kloppenburg, and Hon. Paul Reilly.

The final round will be held on March 31 at 6:00 p.m. in the Appellate Courtroom.  The teams will be matched as follows:

Mary Ellis and Natalie Schiferl v. Larissa Dallman and Nicole Ways.

Best of luck to the finalists.

Print Friendly



Congratulations to the 2015 Marquette Wagner Moot Court Competition Team

Posted by:
Category: Labor & Employment Law, Legal Writing, Marquette Law School, Public
Leave a Comment »

2015WagnerCongratulations to 3Ls Angela Harden, Amanda Luedtke, and Samuel Weinberg for reaching the quarterfinals of the 39th Annual Robert F. Wagner National Labor & Employment Law Moot Court Competition in New York this past weekend.  The team also took second place for its Respondent’s brief.  This year’s competition was comprised of 41 teams.

Professor Paul Secunda served as the team’s faculty advisor, and Attys. and Marquette Law alumni Jesse Dill and Tony Flint coached the team.  This year’s Wagner problem involved application of the WARN Act to a plant closing of an oil company (Fazal Oil) after a coup de etat occurred in the country where the oil company was located (San Marcos). Specifically, the problem asked whether the Liquidating Fiduciary, Unforeseeable Business Circumstance and Faltering Company exceptions were able to be claimed by Fazal Oil after they closed the San Marcos oil plant without giving the employees the 60 day notice of closing required under the WARN Act.  Congratulations, again, to our Marquette Law School team for their tremendous effort in tackling these complex employment issues.

Print Friendly



Congratulations to the 2015 Jenkins Honors Moot Court Competition Semifinalists

Posted by:
Category: Legal Writing, Marquette Law School, Public
1 Comment »

Congratulations to all who competed in the 2015 Jenkins Honors Moot Court Competition and special congratulations to this year’s semifinalists:  Larissa Dallman, Mary Ellis, Olivia Fitzgerald, Nolan Jensen, Jeremy Klang, Christopher Little, Natalie Schiferl, and Nicole Ways. Teams are advancing after four rounds of preliminary competition this past weekend.

Thank you to the numerous judges who graded briefs and heard oral arguments, as well as to all the competitors, who prepared hard for the competition and fought good battles this weekend.

The semifinal round will be held on Thursday, March 26 at 6:00 p.m. The teams will be matched as follows:

Team 11 v. Team 6 will argue in the Appellate Courtroom.

Team 10 v. Team 7 will argue in the Trial Courtroom.

The teams will argue before a panel of judges, including Hon. William Callahan; Hon. Patricia Gorence; Hon. Nancy Joseph; Hon. Joan Kessler; Hon. JoAnne Kloppenburg; and Hon. Paul Reilly.

Good luck to the semifinalists.

 

Print Friendly



Congratulations to the 2015 Marquette Evans Competition Teams

Posted by:
Category: Legal Writing, Marquette Law School, Public
Leave a Comment »

Congratulations to 3Ls Melissa Fischer, Nicole Ostrowski, and Julia Westley for reaching the quarterfinals of the Evan A. Evans Constitutional Law Moot Court Competition this past weekend.  Professor Blemberg advised the team.  3Ls Brendan Leib and Peter Smiley also competed and were advised by Professor Scott Idleman and Professor Jake Carpenter.  The teams were coached by Attorneys Elizabeth Bronson, Paul Jonas, Matthew Martz, Martin St. Aubin, and Drew Walgreen.  All of the coaches are Marquette alumni who competed in moot court.

Print Friendly



Revisiting the Subjunctive Mood: Great for Persuasion

Posted by:
Category: Legal Writing, Public
Leave a Comment »

A perhaps often overlooked technique that can help your writing gain some persuasiveness is the subjunctive mood. It’s possible that you remember the subjunctive less from your English classes than from your foreign languages classes—at least that’s the case for me. When learning to conjugate verbs in another language, you’ll often bump up against the subjunctive.

Verbs have moods. According to Patricia Osborn in How Grammar Works: A Self-Teaching Guide 182 (2d ed. 1999), mood “simply means the attitude of the speaker toward the words being spoken.” In English grammar, there are three moods: the indicative, the imperative, and the subjunctive. The imperative mood is the most common and indicates that the speaker is simply to convey meaning. For example, I look forward to warmer weather is written in the imperative mood. The verb to look is properly conjugated to match the subject, I. (Although my example is in the present tense, the imperative mood works in all verb tenses.) The imperative mood is for giving commands. For example, Hurry up! is imperative. Again, the verb to hurry is properly conjugated for the understood subject, you.

The subjunctive, by contrast, “uses an out-of-the-ordinary verb form to call attention to something extraordinary” (Osborn, 183). It is, as Osborn labels it in her text, “The [m]ood of [p]ossibilities.” Read more »

Print Friendly