From a master teacher, a results-oriented approach to powerful legal writing that communicates, that persuades--and that wins. Of all the professions, the law has the most deserved reputation for opaque, jargon-clogged writing. Legal education, which focuses on judicial opinions, not instruments of persuasion, is partly to blame. Yet forceful writing is one of the most potent weapons of legal advocacy. In Writing to Win, Steve Stark, a former teacher of writing at Harvard Law, who has taught thousands of aspiring and practicing lawyers, has written the only book on the market that applies the universal principles of vigorous prose to the job of making a case--and winning it. Writing to Win focuses on the writing of lawyers, not judges, and includes dozens of examples of effective (and ineffective) real-life writing--as well as models drawn from advertising, journalism, and fiction. It deals with the problems lawyers face in writing, from organization to strengthening and editing prose; teaches ways of improving arguments; addresses litigation and technical writing in all its forms; and covers the writing attorneys must perform in their practice, from memos and letters to briefs and contracts. Each chapter opens with a succinct set of rules for easy reference. No other legal writing book on the market is as practical, as focused on results, as well written as Writing to Win.
In the case of Steven D. Stark v. members of the American Bar Association, we'd all come out winners, if Stark prevailed. For 12 years Stark taught legal writing to Harvard Law School students; now, he's out to teach the rest of us. "You don't need a literary critic," says Stark, "to know how badly most lawyers write." He offers as evidence most briefs, memos, and law review articles. Using legal jargon helps lawyers confuse the court, which in some cases is the best defense they've got, and it also helps convince impressed clients that exorbitant fees are well earned.
But Stark argues that good legal writing should pass what he calls the McDonald's test. "If you were to read the document you're drafting aloud in McDonald's," Stark asks, "would people understand what you're saying?" He also insists that, like fiction writers and journalists, lawyers need to be good storytellers. "On one level," he says, "a lawsuit is simply a clash of competing stories. If you tell your story better than the lawyer for the other side ... you will have a far better chance of prevailing." Writing to Win is an excellent resource for guidance on organization and research, litigation writing, oral argument, and even writing memos and letters. Stark illustrates his lessons with examples written by lawyers--whereas most law schools rely more heavily on the writing of judges. Among his many salient points are his recommendations that you should lead with your conclusions ("legal arguments or explanations," he says, "should not be like an O. Henry short story") and that you should deal with the arguments against your case. The latter is not only best heard from you rather than from your adversary, but it "actually enhances your credibility." --Jane Steinberg
Customer Reviews:
Avg. Customer Rating: 4.5 / 5.0
Oh, that's what "they" meant:
I have heard Writing to Win has been used in Advanced Legal Writing classes, which seems to be its best niche - law school upper level student or young lawyer or equivalent. (I read it on my own, outside a classroom setting.) The book should help polish one's writing style. It is not a basic writing book that dwells on grammar, etc. It does provide a writing structure that had me repeatedly saying to myself, "Oh, that's what 'they' meant." I have had other writing teachers and mentors say things that are... more info
Short And Sweet, But Not The Best:
Stark takes on the whole legal writing proces in a breezy style. Stark was a litigator once, and it shows. But that was years ago, and I think you can tell. In contrast, I liked Bryan Garner's "The Winning Brief" a lot more, in part because Garner gives real-world examples of what to do and what not to do. Stark tells more than shows. As a litigator myself, I find it more useful if an author shows me an example of what not to do and how to correct it. I gave it three stars. This book is very useful if... more info
Great book, very informative.:
I am pleasantly surprised by the readability of this useful book. The book kept my attention, and it was very helpful and informative.
Simple rules to live by:
This book is a great tool for the over-verbose legalese writer, as well as the novice who needs to know how to LOOK as if they know what they're doing. It knocks legal writing down to the basics (face it - if you haven't got a valid case, no amount of purple prose is going to save it.) It also clearly defines the parameters of specialized legal writing (pleadings, writs, etc.)
Privacy policy: we don't collect information
about visitors except for the standard technical server logs. We don't send unsolicited emails. We don't
sell the information that we don't collect about you to anyone. When you follow
links to other sites, their privacy policies apply. Thanks for visiting!
