Welcome to my LinkedIn archive.
Categories: Dear 1L, Dear 2L, Legal Writing
By Year: 2026, 2025, 2024, 2023, 2022, 2021
Follow me on LinkedIn
Search by word to find what I’ve written on the topic of your choosing!
Dear Legal Writer ("DLW"): This is a post ("Post") about a pesky habit ("Habit") I see in most litigators (“Litigators”).
The Habit: sticking a word in quotation marks, then stuffing it in parentheses (hereinafter, a "Parenthetical").
Once you start suffering from this Habit, you can't stop, which is a condition I call can’t-stop-itis ("Can't-Stop-Itis").
——Exhibit A ("Exhibit A")——
Dear 1L, I hate the saying, “Look left; look right;
and 3 years from now,
only 1 of you will be here.”
Old law-school deans apparently used to say that to 1Ls on their first day of law school.
Maybe they thought it would incentivize students to work hard from Day 1, but boy doesn’t that quote miss the boat—
Here’s what I want you to think about instead:
Dear Legal Writer, Stop using “assuming arguendo.”
It’s Latin.
It’s legalese.
And it makes you go in slow-mo.
❌ “Assuming, arguendo, that the case is ripe for review, the plaintiff still lacks standing to bring it.”
Try “even if” instead.
(It’ll help you sound less dead.)
✅ “Even if the case were ripe for review, the plaintiff lacks standing to bring it.”
A 1L wrote me yesterday, at the end of her first week of law school:
"When doing all these readings, I find myself unable to really comprehend what I'm reading, even after a few rereads and taking hours upon hours for just one class. Do you have any tips for improving comprehension while not taking forever to get through all this material?"
Here is the letter I wrote back—
It’s for her, and for every new law student who is spending hours and hours reading and worrying that everyone else somehow "gets it."
I made a mistake. And I’m gonna admit it:
I was skeptical about Jimmy. Jimmy Lai
And I underestimated him.
In fact, when he sent me a copy of his book, “Quietly Influential,” all I could think was:
▪️ What did some random Oklahoma lawyer who’d started posting years after me have to teach me about LinkedIn?
Dear Legal Writer, Wanna write more persuasively? Use fewer “to-be” verbs.
Verbs come in two types:
1: ACTION verbs—
These propel your reader forward by presenting action.
2: TO-BE verbs (also called, “state-of-being” verbs)—
These trap your reader in place by describing a static condition.
Dear Legal Writer, This one small edit will instantly upgrade your brief: Move “however” to the middle of the sentence.
Wow, see the difference it makes:
-- To err is human. However, to forgive is divine.
-- To err is human. To forgive, however, is divine. ‼
Try this edit today!
Dear 1L, Lawyers have some wacky ways of writing things.
Learn them now so you don’t lose points when it counts.
1. In the legal world, we spell the word “judgment” without an “e.”
—> Change your Word settings so they autocorrect “judgement” to “judgment” when you type.
Although both spellings work in the non-legal context, now that you’re joining the legal world, you should probably just start using the “judgment” spelling in everything you write.
Dear Legal Writer, I worked 20 yrs as a litigator without anyone ever explaining to me how to put together a brief.
So I came up with this new framework: M-A-D-E
M = Master the material
A = Arrange the material
D = Draft the sections
E = Edit in stages
(This is for trial-court briefs.)
Here are the details:
Dear Legal Writer, Before you give that draft to the partner, make sure you haven't used any of these WORDY ways to say "because":
📍 "based on"
📍 "as a result of"
📍 "for the reason that"
📍 "due to the fact that"
📍 "in light of the fact that"
📍 "on account of the fact that"
All these ways take a roundabout route to get to your point.
They're also clunky to read, and they add to your word count.
Dear 1L, I need to warn you about the quicksand. Every law school has some.
It lures you in with the promise of high grades, a job at a big firm that pays well, and a credential that makes your school look good.
And it is very hard to climb out of once it has you.
Before you know it, you're stuck—convinced Big Law is your only path to success, even if it was never part of your plan to begin with.
Dear Legal Writer, Lawyers play WAY too fast and loose with “clearly.”
You should banish the word from your vocabulary—especially in a brief.
ORIG: Plaintiff is clearly wrong. 👎
REV: Plaintiff is wrong. ✅
The second one lands harder.
Dear Legal Writer, You’ll never regret making this edit:
It cuts out a full word and two syllables, and it sounds less stuffy and formulaic—
✏️ Change “pursuant to” to “under”:
ORIG: Defendant brings this motion for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Dear Legal Writer, It's hot off the presses, and I'm pumped!
For the first time, Scribes’s best legal-writing essays since 1990 can be found all in one place:
“Gems from The Scribes Journal of Legal Writing: Volumes 1–20,” an anthology edited by Joe Kimble.
🔹 A word on the editor:
I've never met Joe Kimble. But his name has long been associated in my mind with the very best legal writing advice.
They say: “1L will scare you to death. 2L will work you to death. 3L will bore you to death. And then, after dying three times, the bar exam sends you to hell.”
It’s memorable. It’s dramatic. It’s . . . technically flawed.
👉 Grammatically, the sentence says the bar exam died three times.
Why? Because of a dangling modifier.