Description:
In the case of Steven D. Stark v. members of the American Bar Association, we'd all come out winners, if Stark prevailed. For 12 years Stark taught legal writing to Harvard Law School students; now, he's out to teach the rest of us. "You don't need a literary critic," says Stark, "to know how badly most lawyers write." He offers as evidence most briefs, memos, and law review articles. Using legal jargon helps lawyers confuse the court, which in some cases is the best defense they've got, and it also helps convince impressed clients that exorbitant fees are well earned. But Stark argues that good legal writing should pass what he calls the McDonald's test. "If you were to read the document you're drafting aloud in McDonald's," Stark asks, "would people understand what you're saying?" He also insists that, like fiction writers and journalists, lawyers need to be good storytellers. "On one level," he says, "a lawsuit is simply a clash of competing stories. If you tell your story better than the lawyer for the other side ... you will have a far better chance of prevailing." Writing to Win is an excellent resource for guidance on organization and research, litigation writing, oral argument, and even writing memos and letters. Stark illustrates his lessons with examples written by lawyers--whereas most law schools rely more heavily on the writing of judges. Among his many salient points are his recommendations that you should lead with your conclusions ("legal arguments or explanations," he says, "should not be like an O. Henry short story") and that you should deal with the arguments against your case. The latter is not only best heard from you rather than from your adversary, but it "actually enhances your credibility." --Jane Steinberg
| 
