“The Government” as a Negative Label?

labels-vAs we who teach legal analysis and writing teach students how to make the switch from objective to persuasive writing, we often talk about the little things that students can do to their briefs more persuasive.

One fairly obvious technique is for the writer to carefully choose how she wants to label the parties. Calling one party “the Defendant” rather than by his or her given name, for example, tends to de-personalize the defendant. Calling a business entity “the Company,” “the Firm,” or “the Corporation” may trigger for readers certain images or feelings, some of which may be negative. And that may be just what the writer wants if the writer represents a plaintiff alleging a wrong against an impersonal entity. Or, depending on context, maybe those designations are the quickest, easiest way to refer to one of the parties.

But who knew that “the Government” would be considered to a label to avoid—by the government itself?

Continue Reading“The Government” as a Negative Label?

Logos, Ethos, and Pathos in Persuasive Writing

aristotleIn the second semester of their first year, students make the switch from objective to persuasive writing. It’s a switch that some students welcome because they like the idea of arguing a position rather than having to be objective. As students learn, though, there’s more to persuasive writing—or at least more to good persuasive writing—than just arguing a position.

At their core, objective and persuasive legal writing share many of the same traits, such as maintaining the small scale organizational paradigm we refer to as CREAC (a/k/a IRAC). Because lawyers use that paradigm to advance their arguments, students need to master it, which makes the structure of the argument look similar to objective writing. But students need to make other, subtler changes in their writing (and thinking) to persuade effectively. It’s often challenging to succinctly explain these more subtle differences, but one easy way is to introduce the “why” behind the differences, which in turn helps explain those differences. Good persuasive writing argues a position by using a combination of three ancient rhetorical techniques: logos, ethos, and pathos.

Continue ReadingLogos, Ethos, and Pathos in Persuasive Writing

Guide to Public Speaking for Girl Lawyers

Lauren-Bacall-150x150Yes, I wrote “girl” in that headline.  And for a very specific reason. Recently, it’s hit the web that global law firm Clifford Chance has provided its female lawyers in its U.S. offices with a guide to public speaking. And while some (nay, even most) of the tips are perfectly reasonable, there are others that smack of such sexism to the extent that one might believe that Clifford Chance thinks of its female lawyers as girls.  To wit, one of the points in the guide:  “Don’t giggle.” Another: “Pretend you’re in moot court, not the high school cafeteria” (on “‘Like’ You’ve got to Lose ‘Um’ and ‘Uh,’ ‘You Know,’ ‘OK,’ and ‘Like’).

Like, seriously?

On both points, they are equally applicable to male lawyers. (Yes, men do giggle, but the use of that word here suggests something very female, very childish, and very undesirable.) Yet, it was only Clifford Chance’s female lawyers who received this five-page memo. It’s curious to me why this is so. Does the firm believe that there are separate rules for men and women? Does it believe that women need the extra help? Or is it attempting to support its female lawyers? If it is attempting to support its female lawyers, I applaud its desire, but criticize its way of doing so.

Continue ReadingGuide to Public Speaking for Girl Lawyers
Newer Posts
Older Posts