They:
—read the question;
—identify the issue;
—try to figure out the answer; and
—write an essay to justify that answer.

Instead, the MUCH better way is to:

—identify the issue;
—write one side’s best arguments;
—write the other side’s best arguments; and
—explain why one side has the better arguments.

For today, I thought we’d start with some podcasts recommendations.

Here are 5 that I think you’ll like:

1️⃣ How I Lawyer. Jonah Perlin

This one is hosted by a buddy of mine, Jonah Perlin, a lawyer turned Georgetown law professor.

A long list of string cites won’t cut it.

It is FAR more convincing to describe one or two of the cases in a full sentence BEFORE you advance your conclusion.

—Bare parentheticals make your argument harder to follow.

{—And I’m sorry if that’s not progressive enough for you, but it was 1993, and I was hell-bent on NOT ending up as a spinster.}

You see, I never wanted to be a lawyer.
My dad was a lawyer.
He hated it.
I wanted to be a high-school teacher.
Like my mom.

How I hate how my hands have been tied. Alas—

I have created a new self-editing checklist for you.

It includes the 40 most common mistakes I’ve seen 1Ls make over the past 5 years since I’ve been reviewing these briefs after-the-fact, and the items included cover the major points I would otherwise be helping you with individually.

I got straight A’s.
I followed all the rules.
And I never got into any trouble.

“The last of the sweet and innocent,”
the high-school yearbook dubbed me.

That was in 7th grade, but by 9th, my goody two shoes fell out of vogue.

My best friends started resenting me.

It’s potentially THE No. 1 most important part of a brief.

Here’s why:

1: It’s the first thing a court sees.

(—First impressions can be everything.)

2: It’s the first thing a court sees.

Step away and write the table of contents (TOC).

I swear this saved me in so many briefs.

It’s very common to get lost in the weeds of the details of the cases; you can spin yourself round and round.

You need to step back.
You need to consult the map.
You need to get away to see the big picture.

“But Amanda,” you say, “many lawyers—even judges—use ‘find’ generically all the time to describe the actions courts take.”

 —I know. You are right about that. But that does not make using “find” right.

🔹 An appellate court doesn’t “find” anything. It renders conclusions of law, not fact.

They save space AND make your writing flow better.

🐣 “it is anticipated that” —> “it is expected that”

🐣 “did not provide any” —> “provided no”

🐣 “pursuant to” —> “under”

***
So what’s in your basket for today?

See if you can spot the best choice:

🔺 As
🔺 For
🔺 Since
✅ Because
▪️ Based on
🔻 As a result of
🔻 For the reason that
🔻 On the grounds that
🔻 In light of the fact that
🔻 On account of the fact that

Greta.

23.

Just released her first single on Spotify.

“Baby Fat”

I have chills.

I’ve listened to 1,000 times on repeat,

Here’s the 3-2-1 on how to use “however” to show contrast:
—3 grammatically correct ways
—2 ways folks mess things up
—1 superior way for legal writing

🔷 Three correct ways to Use “however” to show contrast—

1: You may start a sentence with “however” followed by a comma.

I’ve spent the last five years entrenched in this subject, and I’m convinced our current system is not working.

I’d start with law schools, but I have ideas for law firms, too.

For law schools:

🔹 Align writing with doctrine. Legal writing should reinforce doctrinal learning, not compete with it.

Never use “which.”

That’s Chief Justice Roberts’s fix.

He hates the word “which.”

He’ll strike it out of your draft.(1)

I will, too.

Here’s why: