A commenter asks:
[In writing questions presented and issue statements] is there any historical or legal reason why (some) lawyers try to cram everything into one sentence? I have noticed that this unfortunate custom prevails also among lawyers from other, non-English-speaking jurisdictions, which appears to indicate that there must be some method to this this madness.Wayne says:
I was taught to do it that way in law school, and I taught my students to do it that way for several years. It is also a common convention in legal writing today.
So we were taught that way because it was a convention, and it was a convention because we were taught that way.
But why?
From the appellant’s brief in a criminal matter:
Did the Court of Appeals err in holding that the prosecution discharged its affirmative burden of establishing that the appellant’s confession was not the product of his illegal arrest and detention and, therefore, was admissible against him, by concluding that the act of police interrogators in confronting the appellant with the inculpatory admissions of an alleged co-defendant prior to eliciting appellant’s confession, constituted an adequate “intervening event” which supposedly broke the causal chain between his illegal arrest and detention rendering his confession “a product of a free will,” notwithstanding the fact, that the record irrefutably demonstrates that the appellant was arrested illegally, without the benefit of a warrant issued by a neutral and detached magistrate, in violation of Chapter 14 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was thereafter interrogated while illegally detained, was, at all times during his 22 hours at the homicide division, in the presence and under the control of the police, was never taken to a magistrate, never spoke with a lawyer and was mislead by the interrogators about what he was actually being charged with?
A single sentence of 179 words. We can do better than that, can’t we?
My try:
Smith was under police control at the station for 22 hours. Police never took him before a magistrate or let him speak with a lawyer, and they misled him about the charge against him. They then arrested him without a warrant—which the prosecution admits was illegal. But the prosecution asserts that when the police confronted Smith with inculpatory admissions of an alleged co-defendant, that intervening event broke the causal chain between his illegal arrest and his confession.
- Was the court of appeals correct that the prosecution carried its burden of proving this break in the causal chain, rendering Smith’s confession a product of his free will?
I gave it a shot. Thoughts?
“As a general principle, those seeking to maximize the readability of extended texts in English aim for a line length of . . . 60 to 70 characters, in text size (9 to 12 point) type. Books are typically small enough—and, more importantly, horizontally skinny enough—for this goal to be achieved in a single column of text. Magazines, in contrast, being larger and broader, are always set in several columns. So too with other professionally printed documents, such as judicial opinions published in West reporters. Legal briefs—at least most of them—are set in single columns like books, but on magazine-size pages. These factors create a line length well outside the recommended zone . . . .”
Derek H. Kiernan-Johnson, Telling Through Type: Typography and Narrative in Legal Briefs, 7 J. ALWD 87, 110-111 (2010) (internal citations omitted).
Read the full article here.
If you have never visited the website of Ross Guberman, you should. Ross is the “Legal Writing Pro,” and his website is
His site is full of tips, articles, and practical advice for improving legal writing.
Ross has made this short article available to me, and I’m making it available to you. It offers persuasive-writing advice based on the writing of two top lawyers: Ted Olson and David Boies.