Legal writing is bad writing because it is so badly written. Oh wait… sorry, I meant to write, “legal writing is bad” but then had to “law school” the prose to make it sound “fact based.”
Not a big deal… because how absolutely awful legal prose are. See that! The subject came last and I added an unnecessary amplifier for a misplaced adjective- Get it? ha!
One might ask,
‘Why would you jump right to a conclusion, when you know the analysis is difficult?’
One might also write, “The analysis is difficult.”
Of course… no good lawyer would write such a conclusionary (not a real word) statement which one would assume that difficult analysis lends itself to “not jumping to conclusions.”
Yes, this is the common argument made in defense of the horribleness of legal prose: legal prose is somehow different than undergraduate liberal arts arguments because the legal mind must “think differently.” This is really tough analysis so you must not start with a “conclusion.”
While that is “kind of” (but not really) true. You do have to be vague instead of argue a thesis statement- but not true at all because you start by identifying the “issues” and the “rules” that frame your double negatives “but for” the inability to make positive statements (unless asked).
See that, I am writing like a lawyer! I just made a thesis statement while pretending not to make a thesis statement and then digressed into minutia that is stated as a part of a rule.
Ahem! The issues and the rules are not really thesis statements because they are not conclusions.
Never say, “D is liable for hitting P.”
Say, “D is subject to liability for hitting P with a hammer, because D hit P in the head with a hammer, and hitting someone in the head with a hammer is harmful or offensive contact because getting hit in the head with a hammer hurts and/or is offensive.” You say this after stating the rule of course… because god knows, if you don’t repeat parts of the rule in your analysis, then you must not understand the concept.
You must write something like, “C is subject to liability for negligence to J because had C not kicked over the trash can, J would not have fallen down. ‘But for’ the negligence of C, J would not have been hurt by the fall because falling down hurts.” Now, ramble on about actual/ legal cause and add something about proximity/ argue for intervening and lack of intervening causes, for and against proximate causation. Then make the bold conclusion that does not make a conclusion, “C may be subject to liability…”
Congratulations- B plus or better!
See… learn the rules and then write like you are a teenager on LSD explaining something to an alien and you’ll be fine…
Just kidding because I am joking and joking is a form of humor that pokes fun at something because poking fun at something can be funny!
Hey…..I think I’m hitting a mental blank with even the basic of tort questions – maybe brain overload maybe?? – anyone any suggestions on how/where/what to start on sample questions as:
Question Five Tim and Tom are flatmates who went out to lunch together to a restaurant called “Fabulous Food”. When they had decided what they wanted to order, Tim went to the counter to place the order, and he paid for both lunches. When the food arrived at the table they were both very hungry and so began to wolf into it, while chatting away about the match the night before. Suddenly Tom stopped talking, clutched his throat and began coughing furiously. Tim, who was trained in first-aid, administered the Heimlich manoeuvre, and after two attempts a lump of plastic came flying out of Tom’s throat. Tom is a pop singer by profession, and had to have two operations to fix the damage done to his throat by this incident he is still under a doctor’s care, and it is unclear as to whether he will be able to continue in his singing career. Advise Tom if he has a cause of action under the law of tort, and if so, who is the appropriate Defendant. Explain the relevant principles to Tom.