This past weekend our legal writing faculty attended the 7th Biennial Central States Legal Writing Conference in Chicago. The theme of this year’s conference was “Practice-Ready”: Preparing Students and Assessing Progress. In keeping with this practice-oriented theme, our legal writing faculty presented on three topics: using live critique feedback on student drafts, crafting persuasive word choice through attention to text, subtext, and context, and developing an argument for a new rule of law in an appellate brief.

Many legal writing professors have moved to a live critique method for providing feedback on student drafts. Professors Alison Julien and Susan Bay presented the merits of doing a live critique about writing, including how best to approach a live critique. In a live critique, a professor provides oral and written feedback about the writing while a student is present at a conference with the professor. Live critique allows a professor to give real-time responses to writing, as well as a more holistic approach to assessment of the writing. A professor and student can engage in true dialogue in a live critique conference, as Professors Julien and Bay noted.

In a brief an attorney can use subtle changes in word choice to craft a persuasive statement of the law or the facts. Professor Rebecca Blemberg discussed how to use text, subtext, and context to develop persuasive word choices. Her presentation included practical exercises to help students appreciate the differences in text, subtext, and context, and a more theoretical explanation of the relationship between hermeneutics (interpretation) and word choice.

I discussed how to develop an argument for a new rule of law in an appellate brief. Legal writing students learn how to structure an argument using a paradigm of reasoning based on the classical syllogism. In an appellate brief, an advocate often argues for the court to modify or create new law. I described the technique I teach my appellate advocacy students for structuring their briefs to best advocate for a new rule of law within the framework of a syllogism.