I recently picked up an opposing brief in an appeal I’m handling. My opponent made some good points, but he also went after me. He called my arguments “facile,” said one of my factual assertions was “pure fantasy,” accused me of “embellishing the record,” called my inclusion of a particular case “simply inexcusable” and said my brief was “unwittingly, its own worst enemy.” To top it off, he said one of my contentions was wrong “except in respondents’ fevered minds.”
When you’re about to write something like this, stop and think. Ask yourself, “What if I were one of the appellate justices reading this brief? Would I find these characterizations persuasive? Would they push me toward ruling for the brief writer?” Not me. I’d be persuaded by facts, law and policy arguments—not by personal accusations and adjectives against a lawyer. “Beyond not helping, could they actively hurt the chance of persuading me?” Yes.
This content has been archived.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]
