Legal writing

Good legal writing should be precise, organized, and understandable. Formal writing is appropriate, but unnecessary complexity usually makes legal analysis worse rather than better.

A judge should be able to determine what happened, what law applies, why that law supports your position, and what you want the court to do. The goal is not to make every sentence sound like it survived three constitutional conventions and a duel.

Facts describe what the record establishes or alleges. Argument explains the legal significance of those facts.

"The Case Portal recorded the filing at 8:14 PM" is a factual statement if supported by the record. "The filing was untimely because the deadline expired at 8:00 PM" is the legal argument built upon that fact. Keeping facts and argument distinct makes written reasoning easier to evaluate.

When an argument depends upon a fact already in the proceeding, counsel should identify where that fact appears. Instead of writing, "The Government never served the notice," counsel should point to the relevant docket, service record, admission, or other material supporting the claim.

Record citations allow the court to verify factual statements quickly. Judges generally prefer verification over treasure hunts.

A legal proposition should be supported by the relevant rule, statute, precedent, or other authority where appropriate. The cited authority should actually support the proposition for which it is offered.

A case discussing jurisdiction does not become a hearsay case simply because the word "evidence" appears somewhere on page six. Citation quality matters more than citation decoration.