What Law Schools Get Right
Lawyers on LinkedIn sure do bash law schools a lot.
“They don’t teach students the practical skills to be a ‘real’ lawyer.”
Well, that is true in part, but I’ve got a different take when it comes to one skill:
That skill is legal analysis.
Here, it’s the law schools getting it right, and, too often, the “real” lawyers getting it wrong.
⬇️
Consider this four-sentence “legal analysis” from one litigator’s brief in support of a motion for summary judgment (MSJ):
1. The court should grant Defendant’s MSJ.
2. To survive an MSJ…[explanation of legal standard with citations]
3. Plaintiff here lacks sufficient proof to survive Defendant’s MSJ. See [3 cases with parentheticals quoting their holdings]. ❌
4. D is thus entitled to summary judgment on P’s claims.
WHOA!! That is NOT legal analysis.
And the “real” lawyer who wrote it needs to revisit what law schools DO teach!
🔷 To “analyze” in a legal brief means:
A) to describe the facts of past court cases,
B) to compare the facts from your case to the facts of those past cases,
and…
C) to reason why your case is therefore similar or different from those past cases.
It is only AFTER you have completed ALL THREE steps that you’re ready to wrap up with a conclusion that the past cases should persuade your court to rule your way.
❌ So STOP cutting and pasting parentheticals from other briefs and think you have done your job.
You need to SPELL THINGS OUT for the court.
💌 Amanda
#Dear1L
#DearLegalWriter
*******************
P.S. This morning, I am sending writing tips to the 1,124 subscribers of my FREE monthly email newsletter.
It’s called ▪️♥️▪️ 3 Bullets, and it’s got tips for 3 types of writers:
-1 Tip for briefwriters
-1 Tip for 1L writers
-1 Tip for LinkedIn writers
I also briefly share LinkedIn stats, book sales reports, and other inside stuff about what I’m working on.
If you liked this post, you will like my newsletter! You can check it out here: