(b) Craft a persuasive Legal Argument

craft CRAFT

Tip 9. State the legal issue in the opening paragraph.

Bryan A Garner provides a useful formula: 'In deciding this [case, appeal, etc], the court need address only the following [2, 3, or whatever number] issues …' 370

Tip 10. Break the issue into 3 sentences:371

  • 1. state the law (for example, 'The Constitution disqualifies parliamentary candidates if the candidate owes a foreign allegiance');
  • 2. summarize the facts of your case that tie into your legal statement (for example, 'In this case, the Defendant has dual citizenship');
  • 3. put the issue as a question (for example, 'Should the court disqualify the Defendant?').

Introducing the issue as a question sounds more objective than 'pushing your answer'.372

Tip 11. But then give your answer to the question (your conclusion) upfront:

'[A]ll legal writing is more easily understood if the conclusion is stated before the reasoning is provided.'373And if you force your audience to wait for your conclusion, then you tempt your audience to turn off before you reach your main point.374

Tip 12. Make sure you support your conclusion with reasons.

John M Lannon provides a formula: 'My answer is … because …' and your reasons follow the 'because'. Bryan A Garner suggests reversing the formula: 'Because of …, my position is …'375 Use a 'cable-like' argument rather than a 'chain' argument, as described above in Step 9.

Tip 13. And limit yourself to your strongest arguments.376

A leading Australian QC says the 'essence of winning in court is to pick the real point of the case and not flog the ones which have no legs'.377 By limiting your argument to the strongest points, you add:

'emphasis to those points and avoid the danger of diverting the court's attention. Moreover, the lesser arguments, when unacceptable to the court, may create the erroneous impression that the case depends on an argument which is intended only as an added buttress. Finally, a judge's rejection of a subsidiary argument may color his impression of the soundness of the whole brief.'378

Law teachers sometimes give students the opposite advice. In an exam, your teacher has a set of legal issues in mind, and you get points for every legal issue that you spot; but you do not necessarily lose points for making arguments that would fail in real life.379 At law school, if you do not raise every conceivable argument, then you risk missing out on marks. But, in real life, 'failing to toss out the arguments that would not fly ultimately runs a bigger risk: creating a mishmash of legal theories that produces lumpy, sodden writing'.380

Tip 14. Put your strongest arguments first.

Some researchers have found a 'primacy effect'. Arguments that appear at the beginning of a message persuade more than arguments that appear later.381 Some persuasion theorists, and lawyers, also suggest putting your second strongest argument last, because of a 'recency' effect: arguments that appear at the end of a message persuade more than those made earlier.382

But this persuasion theory may not apply so well to written advocacy. Judges expect to see your best arguments first, so 'When judges come to the weak points in a brief, they may assume that you won't raise anything else of importance'.383 If you leave your second strongest argument last, the judge might never get to one of your strongest points.384

Tip 15. Use IRAC to organize your arguments.

According to some researchers, audiences trust people who make organized arguments more than people who make disorganized arguments. Further, audiences react more favorably to arguments organized in familiar forms than to arguments organized in unfamiliar forms.385 Although IRAC does not help much to solve your legal problem, IRAC provides one of the most familiar forms of organizing your answer.386

Under IRAC, the introductory paragraph identifies the Issue. The argument should then set out and fully develop the 'Rule' that applies in the case, Apply that rule to the facts, and set out the reasons supporting the Conclusion you advocate.387

Tip 16. Organize your argument into compartments, introduced by headings and subheadings.388

Headings and subheadings make your writing easier to follow.389

Tip 17. Use argumentative headings and subheadings.

For example, you write more informatively when you say 'The Buyer Waived the Delivery Date by Continuing to Encourage Performance' than merely 'The Delivery Schedule' or 'Waiver'. The longer heading informs the judge quickly, saving them time.390

Tip 18. Provide an introductory or topic sentence that paraphrases or amplifies the heading.391 Then follow the introductory sentence progressively with more specific statements that support your heading until you make your case.

In this way, 'a clear progression of ideas from the overall heading down to the smallest supporting particular will be available. In addition, when a case is cited, it will appear in context'.392

Tip 19. Start each succeeding paragraph with an introductory or topic sentence that propels the discussion forward to the conclusion in your heading or subheading.393

Tip 20. End your paragraphs in such a way as to point to the next paragraph's topic sentence.394

Tip 21. Make sure each paragraph concerns 1 thing only, which you explain in each paragraph's topic sentence.395

Tip 22. Connect each sentence and paragraph to enable the reader to move along smoothly.396 Use 'transitional' techniques,397 such as:

  • open with words like 'But', 'Also', and 'Moreover'
  • open with words like 'This', 'That', 'These', and 'Those'
  • echo the last words of the preceding paragraph

Tip 23. In citing and discussing cases, put the best cases first.398

Tip 24. Do not provide 'naked citations':

'A naked citation leaves it to the judge to figure out how the cited case bears on the issue to be resolved. Give the judge a naked citation and you have been discourteous, imposing on the judge's time and energy.'399

Tip 25. Rather, present the cases fully enough that the judge does not feel they must read the case to understand it.400

Tip 26. And show how the cases fit into your argument, so that the judge understands their significance.401

Tip 27. Use a version of CRAC to discuss cases.402 Specifically, summarize what the case holds before turning to its details.

When you give the holding first, 'the reader can test that conclusion against each nut and bolt of the reasoning that follows'.403

Tip 28. But do not overload your brief with case citations.404

You should 'give the court the necessary cases and not one more. No citations just to show off'.405 If you have a particularly strong citation on point, you risk diluting the strong citation by adding a lot of other citations that bear only tangentially on the issue.406 And if you overload your argument with citations, you might discourage 'if not … disgust the most industrious judge'407 who must read the brief.

Yet you might want to add citations to supplement an old citation, where sheer weight of precedent forms part of the case, and when synthesizing a confusing area of law.408

The less contentious a proposition, the less authority you need.409

Tip 29. And do not provide string citations:

'A string citation is several cases cited one after another, each separated from the next only by a semicolon. It's hideous on the page and useless to the judge reading it. A good case in a string citation just gets lost.'410

Tip 30. Adapt your citations to the court and the judge.411 For example:

'Try not to cite one state's cases to another state's court, or lower court cases to a higher court, or federal cases to a state court, or state cases to a federal court (unless the federal court is applying state law). Judges will be mildly interested in cases from an inappropriate court. Cite them a case from an appropriate court and they're on fire.'412

Tip 31. Do not ignore issues or precedents that harm your case; rather, confront, explain, distinguish, or accommodate them.413 Do this because:

  • 'there's nothing unlawyerlike in losing your share of cases'; but 'there's a great deal that's unlawyerlike in trying to flimflam a court'414
  • giving the judge the full picture shows candor and 'bolsters your credibility by enhancing the sense that you are handling the facts fairly' and respecting your opponent's intelligence415
  • most persuasion theorists believe that 2-sided arguments persuade highly educated people more than 1-sided arguments416
  • under 'inoculation' theory, audiences pre-exposed to weakened counter-arguments will find those counter-arguments less persuasive when your opponent comes to present those counter-arguments417
  • the court will have to address your opponent's argument anyway for you to win

Tip 32. But put your argument before answering the other side's points.418

Tip 33. And distinguish the other side's cases briefly:

'Elaborate analysis and rebuttal of every case cited in an opponent's brief, or too lengthy or too numerous references to his principal cases, may show over-concern about their importance. One should dispose of them as ably and as pungently as one can—and move on.'419

Tip 34. End with:

  • a concise statement of why you should win the case—for example, the injustice or poor policy that will occur if the court rules against you or the justice that will be served if the court says yes to your client420
  • a specific statement on what you want the court to do421

This may seem repetitive, but repetition like this can itself sometimes help to persuade.422

Table 73: Craft a persuasive legal argument

370 Bryan A Garner, The Winning Brief: 100 Tips for Persuasive Briefing in Trial and Appellate Courts (2nd ed, 2004) 56. See also Andrew Goodman, Influencing the Judicial Mind—Effective Written Advocacy in Practice (2006) 48.

371 Bryan A Garner, The Winning Brief: 100 Tips for Persuasive Briefing in Trial and Appellate Courts (2nd ed, 2004) 55, 87, 88. See also Frederick Bernays Wiener, Briefing and Arguing Federal Appeals (1961, 2001 reprint) 73; Andrew Goodman, Influencing the Judicial Mind—Effective Written Advocacy in Practice (2006) 48.

372 See Bryan A Garner, The Winning Brief: 100 Tips for Persuasive Briefing in Trial and Appellate Courts (2nd ed, 2004) 86.

373 F Trowbridge Vom Baur, 'The Art of Brief Writing' (1976) 22 The Practical Lawyer 81, 91. See also Joseph P Napoli, 'Forceful Brief Writing and Oral Argument' (1977) 12 Trial Lawyers' Quarterly 82, 85; Harry Mills, Artful Persuasion: How to Command Attention, Change Minds, and Influence People (1999) 139, 143.

374 Peter Thompson, Persuading Aristotle: The Timeless Art of Persuasion in Business, Negotiation, and the Media (1999) 34.

375 Bryan A Garner, The Winning Brief: 100 Tips for Persuasive Briefing in Trial and Appellate Courts (2nd ed, 2004) 105–6.

376 See Ruggero J Aldisert quoted in Andrew H Baida, 'Writing a Better Brief: A Useful Guide to Better Written Submissions in Appellate Advocacy' (2002) 22 Australian Bar Review 149, 158 ('When faced with a brief that raises no more than three points, I breathe a sigh of satisfaction and conclude that the brief writer really may have something to say'); Patricia M Wald, '19 Tips from 19 Years on the Appellate Bench' (1999) 1 Journal of Appellate Practice and Process 7, 11 ('Judges become euphoric on encountering a brief that begins, "The onlyissue in this case is …" On the other hand, with the top 10-type brief, the presumption in favor of the decision below kicks in when you reach Nos 3 or 4 and with each succeeding argument, you have a higher psychological threshold to surmount'); Robert H Jackson, 'Advocacy Before the United States Supreme Court' (2003) 5 Journal of Appellate Practice and Process 219, 224 ('receptiveness declines as the number of assigned errors increases. Multiplicity hints at lack of confidence in any one'). See also Jason L Honigman, 'The Art of Appellate Advocacy' (1966) 64(6) Michigan Law Review 1055, 1060, 1063; Bryan A Garner, The Winning Brief: 100 Tips for Persuasive Briefing in Trial and Appellate Courts (2nd ed, 2004) 401–4; Frederick Bernays Wiener, Briefing and Arguing Federal Appeals (1961, 2001 reprint) 96; Andrew Goodman, Influencing the Judicial Mind—Effective Written Advocacy in Practice (2006) 56; Neil James, Writing at Work (2007) 109; Ruggero J Aldisert, Winning on Appeal: Better Briefs and Oral Argument(2nd ed, 2003) 127–8.

377 Peter Thompson, Persuading Aristotle: The Timeless Art of Persuasion in Business, Negotiation, and the Media (1999) 33.

378 Jason L Honigman, 'The Art of Appellate Advocacy' (1966) 64(6) Michigan Law Review 1055, 1060, 1063.

379 But see Harry McVea and Peter Cumper, Learning Exam Skills (1996, 2002 reprint) 12.

380 James W McElhaney, 'Legal Writing That Works' (2007) 93(7) ABA Journal 30. See also Steven D Stark, Writing to Win: The Legal Writer (1999) 64–6; Bryan A Garner, The Redbook: A Manual on Legal Style (2002) 333.

381 See Paul T Wangerin, 'A Multidisciplinary Analysis of the Structure of Persuasive Arguments' (1993) 16 Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy 195, 201. See also F Trowbridge Vom Baur, 'The Art of Brief Writing'(1976) 22 The Practical Lawyer 81, 88; Jason L Honigman, 'The Art of Appellate Advocacy' (1966) 64(6) Michigan Law Review 1055, 1060 ('This primary position assures greater likelihood of attention and emphasizes the importance of the major points. The arguments establishing fairness should have priority of presentation. If one can initially demonstrate the justice of his cause, the likelihood of acceptance of the supporting legal arguments will be greatly enhanced'); Joseph P Napoli, 'Forceful Brief Writing and Oral Argument' (1977) 12 Trial Lawyers' Quarterly 82, 85; Michelle Pan, 'Strategy or Stratagem: The Use of Improper Psychological Tactics by Trial Attorneys to Persuade Jurors' (2005) 74 University of Cincinnati Law Review 259, 269; Jonathan K Van Patten, 'Twenty-Five Propositions on Writing and Persuasion' (2004) 49 South Dakota Law Review 250, 261 ('You begin to build or lose credibility with your first argument'); Andrew Goodman, Influencing the Judicial Mind—Effective Written Advocacy in Practice (2006) 49.

382 See Paul T Wangerin, 'A Multidisciplinary Analysis of the Structure of Persuasive Arguments' (1993) 16 Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy195, 201, fn 33. See also Deborah E Bouchoux, Aspen Handbook for Legal Writers.

383 Bryan A Garner, The Elements of Legal Style (2nd ed, 2002) 60. See also Steven D Stark, Writing to Win: The Legal Writer (1999) 144 ('by the time judges get to the last page of your brief, they're not paying much attention').

384 But compare Deborah E Bouchoux, Aspen Handbook for Legal Writers.

385 See Paul T Wangerin, 'A Multidisciplinary Analysis of the Structure of Persuasive Arguments' (1993) 16 Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy 195, 201.

386 For 4 ways of persuasively organising an argument or presentation, depending on your audience, see Harry Mills, Artful Persuasion: How to Command Attention, Change Minds, and Influence People (1999) 151–3. See also Bryan A Garner, The Elements of Legal Style (2nd ed, 2002) 58–9.

387 See further, for example, Andrew H Baida, 'Writing a Better Brief: A Useful Guide to Better Written Submissions in Appellate Advocacy' (2002) 22 Australian Bar Review 149, 168.

388 F Trowbridge Vom Baur, 'The Art of Brief Writing' (1976) 22 The Practical Lawyer 81, 86. See also Jason L Honigman, 'The Art of Appellate Advocacy' (1966) 64(6) Michigan Law Review 1055, 1062–3; Andrew H Baida, 'Writing a Better Brief: A Useful Guide to Better Written Submissions in Appellate Advocacy' (2002) 22 Australian Bar Review 149, 171.

389 Bryan A Garner, The Elements of Legal Style (2nd ed, 2002) 77.

390 F Trowbridge Vom Baur, 'The Art of Brief Writing' (1976) 22 The Practical Lawyer 81, 86–7. See also Jason L Honigman, 'The Art of Appellate Advocacy' (1966) 64(6) Michigan Law Review 1055, 1062–3; Lucille R Kaplan, 'Writing that Persuades: No Quick Fix for the Advocate' (1984) 20 Trial 44, 45; Andrew H Baida, 'Writing a Better Brief: A Useful Guide to Better Written Submissions in Appellate Advocacy' (2002) 22 Australian Bar Review 149, 171; Neil James, Writing at Work (2007) 67; Bryan A Garner, The Winning Brief: 100 Tips for Persuasive Briefing in Trial and Appellate Courts (2nd ed, 2004) 300; Frederick Bernays Wiener, Briefing and Arguing Federal Appeals (1961, 2001 reprint) 67; Bryan A Garner, The Elements of Legal Style (2nd ed, 2002) 77; Steven D Stark, Writing to Win: The Legal Writer (1999) 146–7. But compare Andrew Goodman, Influencing the Judicial Mind—Effective Written Advocacy in Practice (2006) 22, 50–51.

391 F Trowbridge Vom Baur, 'The Art of Brief Writing'(1976) 22 The Practical Lawyer 81, 90.

392 F Trowbridge Vom Baur, 'The Art of Brief Writing'(1976) 22 The Practical Lawyer 81, 90–91. See also Jonathan K Van Patten, 'Twenty-Five Propositions On Writing and Persuasion' (2004) 49 South Dakota Law Review 250, 252.

393 Andrew H Baida, 'Writing a Better Brief: A Useful Guide to Better Written Submissions in Appellate Advocacy' (2002) 22 Australian Bar Review 149, 170. See also Jonathan K Van Patten, 'Twenty-Five Propositions On Writing and Persuasion' (2004) 49 South Dakota Law Review 250, 251, 254, 256.

394 Jonathan K Van Patten, 'Twenty-Five Propositions On Writing and Persuasion' (2004) 49 South Dakota Law Review 250, 252.

395 Jonathan K Van Patten, 'Twenty-Five Propositions On Writing and Persuasion' (2004) 49 South Dakota Law Review 250, 252. Bryan A Garner, The Winning Brief: 100 Tips for Persuasive Briefing in Trial and Appellate Courts (2nd ed, 2004) 115–18.

396 F Trowbridge Vom Baur, 'The Art of Brief Writing' (1976) 22 The Practical Lawyer 81, 91; Lucille R Kaplan, 'Writing that Persuades: No Quick Fix for the Advocate' (1984) 20 Trial 44, 49; Andrew H Baida, 'Writing a Better Brief: A Useful Guide to Better Written Submissions in Appellate Advocacy' (2002) 22 Australian Bar Review 149, 179; Bryan A Garner, The Winning Brief: 100 Tips for Persuasive Briefing in Trial and Appellate Courts (2nd ed, 2004) 119–20, 126–8.

397 For a fuller list of these techniques, see, for example, Edwin Abbott, How to Write Clearly (1883) 36–7; Neil James, Writing at Work (2007) 132; Deborah E Bouchoux, Aspen Handbook for Legal Writers

398 F Trowbridge Vom Baur, 'The Art of Brief Writing'(1976) 22 The Practical Lawyer 81, 91. Unless you have historical or specific reasons for a different treatment. See also Joseph P Napoli, 'Forceful Brief Writing and Oral Argument' (1977) 12 Trial Lawyers' Quarterly 82, 85.

399 Irving Younger, 'Citing Cases for Maximum Impact' (1986) 72(10) ABA Journal 110.

400 F Trowbridge Vom Baur, 'The Art of Brief Writing'(1976) 22 The Practical Lawyer 81, 91; Joseph P Napoli, 'Forceful Brief Writing and Oral Argument' (1977) 12 Trial Lawyers' Quarterly 82, 85.

401 Andrew H Baida, 'Writing a Better Brief: A Useful Guide to Better Written Submissions in Appellate Advocacy' (2002) 22 Australian Bar Review 149, 175; Andrew Goodman, Influencing the Judicial Mind—Effective Written Advocacy in Practice (2006) 53; Irving Younger, 'Citing Cases for Maximum Impact' (1986) 72(10) ABA Journal 110; Deborah E Bouchoux, Aspen Handbook for Legal Writers (2005) 161.

402 State the case's Conclusion, the Rule applied, how the rule was Applied, and repeat the Conclusion. See also F Trowbridge Vom Baur, 'The Art of Brief Writing'(1976) 22 The Practical Lawyer 81, 91 ('An effective treatment [of cases] states the form of action, the relevant facts, the holding of the case, and one or more apt quotations. This comprehensiveness gives the case a more solid appearance than a sketchy summary'); Joseph P Napoli, 'Forceful Brief Writing and Oral Argument' (1977) 12 Trial Lawyers' Quarterly 82, 85; Deborah E Bouchoux, Aspen Handbook for Legal Writers (2005) 160.

403 F Trowbridge Vom Baur, 'The Art of Brief Writing'(1976) 22 The Practical Lawyer 81, 91. See also Michael Kirby, 'Ten Rules of Appellate Advocacy' (1995) 64 Victorian Bar News 47, 53; (1995) 69 Australian Law Journal 964, 972–3.

404 Frederick Bernays Wiener, Briefing and Arguing Federal Appeals (1961, 2001 reprint) 208, 210–12, 213–22; Andrew Goodman, Influencing the Judicial Mind—Effective Written Advocacy in Practice (2006) 22, 52–3; Steven D Stark, Writing to Win: The Legal Writer (1999) 132.

405 Irving Younger, 'Citing Cases for Maximum Impact' (1986) 72(10) ABA Journal 110.

406 Frederick Bernays Wiener, Briefing and Arguing Federal Appeals (1961, 2001 reprint) 208.

407 John W Davis, quoted in Irving Younger, 'Citing Cases for Maximum Impact' (1986) 72(10) ABA Journal 110.

408 Frederick Bernays Wiener, Briefing and Arguing Federal Appeals (1961, 2001 reprint) 210–12, 213–22.

409 See further Andrew Goodman, Influencing the Judicial Mind—Effective Written Advocacy in Practice (2006) 22, 52–3.

410 Irving Younger, 'Citing Cases for Maximum Impact' (1986) 72(10) ABA Journal 110. Compare Steven D Stark, Writing to Win: The Legal Writer (1999) 132.

411 Frederick Bernays Wiener, Briefing and Arguing Federal Appeals (1961, 2001 reprint) 208; Steven D Stark, Writing to Win: The Legal Writer (1999) 133.

412 Irving Younger, 'Citing Cases for Maximum Impact' (1986) 72(10) ABA Journal 110.

413 See, for example, Deborah E Bouchoux, Aspen Handbook for Legal Writers (2005) 159.

414 Irving Younger, 'Citing Cases for Maximum Impact' (1986) 72(10) ABA Journal 111.

415 Andrew H Baida, 'Writing a Better Brief: A Useful Guide to Better Written Submissions in Appellate Advocacy' (2002) 22 Australian Bar Review 149, 160. See also Michael Kirby, 'Ten Rules of Appellate Advocacy' (1995) 64 Victorian Bar News 47, 54; (1995) 69 Australian Law Journal 964, 973 ('Advocates who do this faithfully are much valued by the judges. Their honesty is remembered. It adds to the most priceless possession of an advocate—reputation'); Harry Mills, Artful Persuasion: How to Command Attention, Change Minds, and Influence People (1999) 150; James W McElhaney, 'Balanced Persuasion' (2002) 88(3) ABA Journal 60, 61 ('Don't hide your warts. If you look like you're concealing something or creating a false impression, your credibility—and your argument—will be destroyed').

416 See Paul T Wangerin, 'A Multidisciplinary Analysis of the Structure of Persuasive Arguments' (1993) 16 Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy 195, 202, 209. See also F Trowbridge Vom Baur, 'The Art of Brief Writing'(1976) 22 The Practical Lawyer 81, 92; Lucille R Kaplan, 'Writing that Persuades: No Quick Fix for the Advocate' (1984) 20 Trial 44, 45. For techniques on handling adverse authority, see Step 8. See more generally Robert J Condlin, '"Cases on Both Sides"—Patterns of Argument in Legal Dispute Negotiation' (1985) 44 Maryland Law Review 65 at, for example, 86–7; Patricia M Wald, '19 Tips from 19 Years on the Appellate Bench' (1999) 1 Journal of Appellate Practice and Process 7, 11; Robert H Jackson, 'Advocacy Before the United States Supreme Court' (2003) 5 Journal of Appellate Practice and Process 219, 224; Frederick Bernays Wiener, Briefing and Arguing Federal Appeals (1961, 2001 reprint) 104; Harry Mills, Artful Persuasion: How to Command Attention, Change Minds, and Influence People (1999) 147, 149, 150.

417 See Paul T Wangerin, 'A Multidisciplinary Analysis of the Structure of Persuasive Arguments' (1993) 16 Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy 195, 208–9; Harry Mills, Artful Persuasion: How to Command Attention, Change Minds, and Influence People (1999) 151.

418 Andrew H Baida, 'Writing a Better Brief: A Useful Guide to Better Written Submissions in Appellate Advocacy' (2002) 22 Australian Bar Review 149, 172. ('Brief writers … frequently get sucked into the other's side's argument by setting up a counter-argument that simply reacts to points made by opposing counsel. These approaches result in a disjointed product lacking a coherent theme, and worse, highlighting the opponent's position rather than the writer's own'); Jonathan K Van Patten, 'Twenty-Five Propositions On Writing and Persuasion' (2004) 49 South Dakota Law Review 250, 261 ('Do the affirmative side of your argument first, then counter punch. It sets up the response so much better. The response is always better after dealing with why you win'); for qualifications and exceptions, see Baida, above, 172–3; Bryan A Garner, The Winning Brief: 100 Tips for Persuasive Briefing in Trial and Appellate Courts (2nd ed, 2004) 405–6; Frederick Bernays Wiener, Briefing and Arguing Federal Appeals (1961, 2001 reprint) 137; Andrew Goodman, Influencing the Judicial Mind—Effective Written Advocacy in Practice (2006) 34.

419 H Weihofen, Legal Writing Style (2nd ed, 1980) 297 quoted in Andrew H Baida, 'Writing a Better Brief: A Useful Guide to Better Written Submissions in Appellate Advocacy' (2002) 22 Australian Bar Review 149, 176.

420 Jonathan K Van Patten, 'Twenty-Five Propositions On Writing and Persuasion' (2004) 49 South Dakota Law Review 250, 270. For other tips on how to end a brief, see Bryan A Garner, The Winning Brief: 100 Tips for Persuasive Briefing in Trial and Appellate Courts (2nd ed, 2004) 414–20, 446–7.

421 Bryan A Garner, The Winning Brief: 100 Tips for Persuasive Briefing in Trial and Appellate Courts (2nd ed, 2004) 444; Andrew Goodman, Influencing the Judicial Mind—Effective Written Advocacy in Practice (2006) 57.

422 See footnote accompanying last tip, below, 'Avoid unnecessary repetition'.

Sponsored links