why wisconsin grads suck at legal writing, part 2
I heard through the grapevine today that my LR&W professor will mark us down on our briefs if the arguments we make don't mirror exactly the arguments she believes are the best. We have to use certain cases to rebut other cases in certain ways, and our arguments have to center around a particular general topic area.While it sort of makes sense - they want to compare our writing based on the same subject/topic, and can only do so if we make the same arguments based on the same cases that we all "coincidentally" found "on our own" - it takes the wind out of the sails of those of us who look at the cases and see other issues that should be exploited. Because, I mean, if I can make a solid argument based on Wisconsin cases, isn't that better than making a solid argument based on out-of-state cases? Why should I be punished for something that a court, in reality, would probably prefer?
And then I remember that I'm being taught legal writing by someone who has never worked as a lawyer or a judge, and my anger multiplies tenfold. (I mean, good writing is good writing, but if the only documents my professor has ever turned into the court involved a UW law clinic or a 2L summer clerkship...that doesn't make me want to put a lot of stock into what I'm being "taught".)
posted by Dangerous Mind @ 22:08
4 Comments:
That's a dirty little secret of my law school, too. They fail to tell you that many, if not most, of the LRW instructors are totally incompetent, lazy or just teaching because it gets them out of the office.
Nah, its a resume builder.
the Prof's that never understood the Totality of the Circumstances test end up teaching the writing courses.
In an unrelated note, the first four letters of the comment verification is ALWD...this is getting scary
If you want to actually learn to write, take an Advanced Legal Writing class with either Moritz or Steingass. Both are awesome.
Post a Comment
<< Home