Read on Twitter
Thanks to @OBAlawyers for having me & @JOpolsky talk about written advocacy in the age of remote litigation this morning. ICYMI, a recap of my advice (
): 1/
): 1/
100% of participants agreed their goal is to write factums that are clear, concise, and persuasive. Easy, right? You'd think so, but too often there's a gap between what the judge needs and what the lawyer provides. 2/
What causes the gap, and how can you close it? 3/
Problem 1: Writing before you know where you'll end up. This forces the judge down your long, bumpy path when a quicker route was open. The fix: separate thinking (in your 
) and communicating (into the judge's ). If you write to think, ok! but not in your factum template. 4/
) and communicating (into the judge's ). If you write to think, ok! but not in your factum template. 4/
Problem 2: The curse of knowledge prevents you from appreciating what it's like to NOT know what you already know. (That's why your smartest teacher was probably not the most effective.) The fix: empathy. Ask yourself: If I were the judge, what would I want to know? 5/
Here are 5 questions a judge will naturally have before they've read a word of your factum: 6/
Bonus: Use your answers to these questions as a formula for your overview (the most important part of your factum). Keep it high level—draw the big picture. 7/
Double bonus: Many judges use this formula for *their* overviews. The more you can mirror their work product in your own, the more helpful (and persuasive) you can be. 8/
That's a lot to remember, so try this visual cue: When you're ready to communicate, put an
on your desk. It'll remind you to be that effective teacher—the one who understands their students' needs and gives them the tools they need to succeed. /end
on your desk. It'll remind you to be that effective teacher—the one who understands their students' needs and gives them the tools they need to succeed. /end
