Instinctively, readers resist being told what to think. They want to reach conclusions on their own. Also, they know you are an advocate, so they hesitate to accept any conclusion that hasn’t been preceded by a heavy dose of supportive facts.
This instinct has ramifications for advocacy. Wherever possible, brief writers should allow readers to reach conclusions on their own. I don’t mean you should eschew summational sentences that follow a solid set of facts, for example, “In light of defendant’s having secretly entered into contracts with seven other suppliers, defendant evidently did not intend to fulfill its requirements with plaintiff’s goods.” I mean only that conclusions should be preceded by facts. If your facts don’t compel the conclusion, you may not wish to state the conclusion explicitly.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
