Polishing Makes Perfect . . . Or Maybe Not

This column offers some tips and strategies that can improve the proofreading process you use. To be clear, I use the term proofreading to refer to the final stage of editing. Of course proofreading can never take the place of earlier stages of rewriting or revising for organization, content, clarity, or conciseness. But this final stage of editing is crucial, because it is where you identify and fix any problems with spelling, grammar, and punctuation that leave your document looking less than polished

Take a P.A.S.S. On Your Next Legal Document

In this column for Kentucky Bar Association\u27s magazine (B&B - Bench & Bar), Professor Henke suggests that writers to contemplate: Purpose, Audience, Scope, and Stance. The goal is to improve the legal writing of practicing lawyers

Effective Writing is Organized Writing

Effective legal writers organize their analysis with the reader in mind. This article focuses on two common techniques used in creating organized writing strong topic sentences and appropriate transitions

Explain It To Me: Tips for Effective Rule Explanation in Legal Analysis

The process of rule explanation is an important part of legal analysis, because it informs the legal reader, be it another attorney or a judge, how the legal rule has been applied in past cases. In other words, the rule explanation is where we use case law “to define, explain, and exemplify” the legal rule that determines the outcomes of the client’s problem or dispute. Legal writing texts refer to this discussion of past cases as case illustrations, case descriptions, or case examples, and they often devote substantial space to the topic. This column highlights four tips for improving the content and clarity of your case illustrations, which can be used when writing rule explanation paragraphs in predictive or persuasive legal writing

Case Note: The Office of the Independent Counsel and Grand Jury Secrecy

In In re Sealed Case No. 99-3091, the D.C. Circuit ruled on a motion for summary reversal of an order entered by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ( District Court ), where such order required the Office of Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr ( OIC ) to provide evidence as to why the OIC should not be held in contempt for violating the grand jury secrecy rule, Rule 6(e). The alleged violation of grand jury secrecy concerned a New York Times article that contained information about the grand jury investigation of President William J. Clinton, and which named the OIC as the source of the information. In order to rule on the motion, the D.C. Circuit first had to determine whether it had authority to hear the motion filed by the OIC, which was before the court on an interlocutory appeal. Upon a determination of proper jurisdiction to hear the appeal under the collateral order doctrine, the D.C. Circuit concluded it was unnecessary to rule on the validity of the OIC\u27s federal sovereign immunity claim, and turned to the merits of the case. The merits related to whether the information contained in the New York Times article amounted to disclosures constituting a prima facie violation of Rule 6(e). In answering this question, the D.C. Circuit clarified the scope of Rule 6(e) and provided insight into the elements of a disclosure that would constitute a prima facie violation of the Rule. The D.C. Circuit then looked to the information in the New York Times article, and held that the disclosure did not constitute a prima facie violation of Rule 6(e). The court therefore, granted the OIC\u27s motion for summary reversal and remanded the case with instructions to the District Court to dismiss the Rule 6(e) contempt proceeding pending against the OIC

When Your Plate is Already Full: Efficient and Meaningful Outcomes Assessment for Busy Law Schools

The American Bar Association (ABA) accreditation standards involving outcome-based assessment are a game changer for legal education. The standards reaffirm the importance of providing students with formative feedback throughout their course of study to assess and improve student learning. The standards also require law schools to evaluate their effectiveness, and to do so from the perspective of student performance within the institution’s program of study. The relevant question is no longer what are law schools teaching their students, but instead, what are students learning from law schools in terms of the knowledge, skills, and values that are essential for those entering the legal profession. In other words, law schools must shift their assessment focus from one centered around inputs to one based on student outputs. Compliance with the ABA’s assessment mandate comes at a time when law school resources are spread thinner than ever. Indeed, faculty already work with plates that are full with students, scholarship, and service. Thus, while not all in the legal academy are on board with the ABA’s approach to outcomes assessment or to outcomes assessment generally, as busy educators, we should all at least agree that the requisite response should be efficient, given that resources are limited, and meaningful, such that the work done can benefit our learners. To do so, law schools should begin at their own tables set with full plates, so to speak, taking stock of what institutions and their faculty are already doing in terms of assessment. And it is important to think broadly here, as faculty may be surprised to learn how many of their colleagues are already doing relevant work. While law schools may already be inclined to begin from within, this Article outlines concrete strategies they can use when working with existing faculty expertise and resources to respond to the ABA’s assessment mandate in a meaningful way for students, and with the goal of maximizing efficiency and gaining broad buy in. While prior scholarship has outlined best practices for outcomes assessment and even shared examples of how to engage in the process in the law school setting, this Article is unique in its depth and breadth of coverage by setting out a detailed case study that illustrates the process of developing an authentic assessment tool and beginning the process for adapting that tool to respond to both the individual student assessment and law school assessment required by the ABA

Give Outlines Another Chance

Much has been written on the benefits of outlining for legal writing specifically and for other professional writing more generally. This commentary provides some of the more common benefits of outlining a legal document