Thursday, June 16, 2016

Dumb intros & conclusions justly attacked

In this week's Lessons Learned column (in the DJ), David Balabanian goes after dumb intros and conclusions. The article is titled Vacant Lots online, but in print it's titled Mind-numbing introductions frustrate judges. Both titles capture his point: "The most valuable tracts of real estate in any brief are the introduction and the conclusion. Rarely, however, are they developed in full, and sometimes hardly at all."

Although nowhere prescribed by statute or rule, most briefs conclude with the simple plea that "For the reasons stated above" the court should do what they ask.
The only apparent purpose of this inanity is to convey the welcome news that the brief is over, at last.
But, you can use the conclusion to remind the court of the several, independently sufficient, reasons why you should prevail ... It need not be lengthy.

Image result for strong conclusion
Turn this timeworn conclusion into... 
Image result for strong conclusion
...sometime with a bit more pop!
Other  articles of note this week:
Law360 presents It Ain’t Over Till When? The Question Of Finality (about finality of Bankruptcy Court orders) and 3 Ways To Become The Best Writer At Your Firm:
1. Keep the Word Count Slim
2. Cut Down on Jargon
3. Get Someone to Proofread