Professional Documents
Culture Documents
by
TABLE OF CONTENTS
This isn’t even a paper (and deliberately so). It’s simply a list of practical points
our Supreme Court Group in Ottawa uses to strategically revise what someone
else has written as a first draft, or to draft from scratch. There’s nothing worse
than reading someone else’s writing about writing. Hopefully the points below
reflect a practical, no-nonsense summary of some of the more effective tactics of
written advocacy.
That being said, many lawyers believe they fulfill their role by simply delivering
information to their clients or to the court in a written form. All one has to do is
write it down. Right? (Write?) They write as if their sole function is to act as a
conduit for the raw data their research has unearthed. But lawyers must be more
than walking photocopiers and note-takers. They should be accomplished
writers – meaning strategic writers, tactical writers. It’s important to be strategic
and be a tactician on your feet in the courtroom — it’s just as important to be
strategic and be a tactician on the page. It takes hard work, but the finished
product is worth the effort — we all know a long dictated letter is a lot easier to
do than a short one (and we can all recognize a far-too-long dictated letter too).
Visual support – Words are no longer the message givers; pictures tell the
story.
Remote-control dismissal – We know how much power we have to
dismiss anyone or anything that does not please us right away.
What’s “Prime” – Teaches what is worth listening to and staying tuned
into and what is considered boring, unimportant, or without mass appeal.
7. Use language that is clear, explicit, succinct, all-inclusive, and most of all,
visual, so your audience can picture what you are talking about. Make
your audience see, experience, and become a part of what you are talking
about.
8. Give colour, ambience, and action – for example:
Not “the car was moving in a northwesterly direction,”
But “the red car left the curb and started up Main Street toward the
McDonald’s on the corner”
Not “and in the files one finds”
But “when he opened the drawer marked ‘last year’s accounts,’ he found –
nothing”.
9. For example, if you’re applying for leave in the S.C.C. (but the same goes
for other courts and tribunals too) time permitting, scan applications over
the last several years; what got accepted and what got rejected in the area
of your appeal. It’s possible to get a clear read on the kind of cases the
Court is interested in. If there is a pattern, make sure you draft your
application such that it relates to one of these “hot” issues. A related
consideration is whether leave has already been granted to a similar case
whose coattails you can ride in on. If you’re going fishing for trout, don’t
bait your hook with pike food. If you know who the judge(s)/members of
tribunal are going to be, do a QL search of their name; that may give you
an idea of how the wind’s blowing.
10. Ted Williams always got into a pitcher’s mind days before a game.
Similarly, when writing a factum try and think like a judge. Change places
with your judge, and keep three things in mind:
• in a judge’s day many matters are competing for his or her attention;
• an initial first impression is critical in the ultimate hard sell to the Court;
• an appeal court will not afford the same luxury of time that you enjoyed at
trial.
11. David Lepofsky: “… your ultimate job … includes making the judge’s
work simple, or at least easier. Remember that the judge or judges who
will be reading your factum are overworked. They are operating under a
lot of pressure and stress. Their job gives them the unenviable task of
having to read piles and piles of legal materials. Much of it is likely drab
and dreary, if not outright boring.”
12. Therefore, as David Lepofsky says, you must “write to engage”.
13. At a basic level (and this can be played out directly or indirectly in a
careful way) the story has to make sense to the judges in terms of their
personal perceptions and attitudes about life. It has to be consistent with
what they think is right and what they think is wrong.
14. Understand that strategically you have to make the judge part of your
thinking processes – part of your team. The “deal” you propose to
him/her must work for both parties, you and the judge.
15. When was the last time your audience viewed the world through the eyes
of a five-year-old? Success at trial occurs when your audience think, feel,
and react from a child’s perspective. Form your arguments by using
language and questions in such a way that guides your audience to think
like children.
16. For instance, consider posing questions like, “do you know a child who
must sit in a wheelchair on the front porch and watch the neighbourhood
children play their games?”
and absorb information better when they first know why it matters
and how it is relevant.
Legal writin’ versus ordinary writin’: one purpose – think tactically, write
strategically
18. Legal writing differs from other sorts of writing in that it is singularly
directed toward persuading the reader (a judge, tribunal member,
arbitrator or other decision-maker) to accept a certain position.
Everything that counsel submits should put into the reader’s mind the
information and motivation necessary for a favourable decision. Appeal
books, factums and everything else are devoted to that goal and nothing
less. You’re not writing to entertain, show how smart you are, how many
authorities you can cite for one proposition, or even writing to inform.
You’re writing to persuade.
19. Consider your client’s overall vision (whether that be a
corporate/institutional vision or perhaps a more personal family law one)
20. Lawyers spend much of their time thinking about what to say and how
they should say it. Relatively little time is spent considering how best to
organize the material on the page. A good-looking document will help
the reader get the point quicker and retain it longer. A well-organized
easily-accessible reader-friendly document is simply more persuasive.
Cornflakes in grey boxes don’t sell well.
Reader-friendly writing
22. Most lawyers write sentences that are too long. Usually small words work
better than big ones.
23. And lawyers, when writing, use words and phrases that nobody
(including them) would ever use in normal verbal communication – as
Justice Laskin has noted, people:
• don’t talk about their motor vehicles, they talk about their cars
• don’t talk about where they’re employed, they talk about where they
work
• don’t talk about utilizing the proceeds of their remuneration to construct a
summer dwelling place, they talk about using what they saved to build a
cottage.
Legalese: drop it
25. Don’t clutter your writing with long literary language that only lawyers
can be bothered to decipher. Legalese may now be second nature to you,
but it sounds exclusive rather than inclusive.
Use transitions
27. In order to create and maintain a flowing argument, you must consciously
incorporate connectives in your writing.
28. Forget topic sentences – bridge your sentences by creating “echo” links.
This connective technique allows you to cause a figurative echo in your
reader’s mind by repeating an earlier used word. A subtler technique
may be to use a derivative of an earlier word.
30. Use the end of the sentence to express the least predictable, the newest,
the most important, the most significant information, the information you
most certainly want to emphasize.
Good writing: reader feels smart. Bad writing: reader feels dumb
31. Augustine Bunell used to say, “Reading is not a duty, and has
consequently no business to be made disagreeable.” Someone (including a
judge) won’t read sluggish disagreeable prose. Deliver the goods simply,
quickly, efficiently. Write in ordinary simple-to-understand language. If
you’re writing it and it makes you feel smart, it probably makes the reader
feel dumb. Good writing makes the reader feel smart. Bad writing makes
the reader feel dumb.
32. Use ordinary day-to-day language. Don’t use any of the following (unless
you’re applying for a government grant):
• synergy
• paradigm shift
• value-added
• core competency
• strategic alignment
• outside the box
• win-win
• empowerment
• leverage
• benchmark
• knowledge base
• collaborative consultation.
33. “Easy reading is damn hard writing”. The opposite’s true too: if it’s easy
to write, it’s probably hard to read.
34. Bottom line: good legal writing looks as if someone other than a lawyer
has written it.
Nothing is absolute
38. Absolute expressions (all, always, every, invariably, never, none, totally,
undoubtedly) are rarely accurate and should be used lightly.
39. Absolutes tend to trigger a reader’s perversity; once told that, “the
campaign was a total failure,” many readers begin to hunt for signs of
partial success.
40. So avoid what Justice Laskin calls “false intensifiers” such as “certainly,”
”clearly,” “absolutely”, which actually weaken rather than strengthen
whatever you’re saying.
41. Understatement works much more strategically than overselling.
• Landlord, Tenant
• use the parties’ real names whenever possible
• if the names are long, shorten them but don’t take them out
• personalizing a case may be important for the appellant or the respondent
- for example, the respondent in a family law case might use the parties’
first names to limit the story to the four walls of their house and thereby
show that the issue is not of ‘national importance’ per the S.C.C. leave to
appeal standard.
46. What you call them (or don’t call them) is a strategic decision.
Write visually
50. Pictures, charts and diagrams can really help to communicate. Particularly
for legislation or complex corporate relationships, consider a foldout
chart.
Options include:
• diagram, in phases, of how matter in litigation occurred
• sequencing, in diagram/written “box” form of what happened
• chart of key relationships/key factual findings you want the judge to rule
on/make.
Tell a story
51. Every file (that is absolutely every file) has a story. The basic elements of
every story are:
• the beginning, the middle, and the end;
Find a theme
55. Every case should have a central theme or themes that evolve from one or
more issues. It’s your job to find that central theme of your case that on
the facts and applicable law creates for us a strong arguable case. It’s your
job to strongly articulate such a theme in your factum — and the job of
opposing counsel to puncture that theme or frustrate it and take it apart.
56. The most powerful themes go beyond one idea and lock two opposing
ideas in conflict, creating a dialogue. For instance “the defendant valued
money more than safety.” In such instances, it is not the moral of the
story that involves the reader so much as the struggle between the two
opposing points of view in the theme.
57. Today, the media communicates information in sound bites. The theory
of a case cannot always be reduced to a sound bite, but, when it can be
boiled down to a phrase or a few sentences that can be reiterated from
jury selection, through the presentation of evidence and in closing, it can
be very effective.
58. If others are participating, make sure you have a unified theme.
63. Lawyers often add in dates because it makes them feel precise or feel
clever. But don’t fall into the trap of writing it for yourself – write it for
the reader that’s going to read it. Usually dates are just clutter.
eg: “ On Oct. 15, 2005 , Dr. McTavish informed the Plaintiff the pain
running down the back of her leg was from a pulled hamstring. On
Nov. 16, 2005, the Plaintiff reported ongoing leg pain, and Dr.
McTavish became concerned there was a more serious issue. The
Plaintiff returned to Dr. McTavish on Nov. 30, 2005, Dec. 7, 2005,
and Dec. 20, 2005, each time complaining that her leg pain
persisted. Dr. McTavish referred the Plaintiff to an orthopedic
surgeon on Dec. 23, 2005, and on Jan. 10, 2006 the surgeon
diagnosed a herniated disc that was impinging on the Plaintiff’s
sciatic nerve.”
64. Here’s the basics on when to, when not to, do the date thing:
• dates distract
• if the issue has no time-sensitive legal imperative, drop the date
• putting in unnecessary dates gives the reader the cue that there is a time-
sensitive issue, then stay on the lookout for that phantom point, and when
they realize they’ve been fed a false impression they get pissed off
• putting in a date that’s not key diverts the reader from what you want
them to be looking for – all you’ve done is create your own red herring.
65. So how do you establish the chronology of events without using dates?
Here’s how:
• focus on the temporal relationship between important events by using
words and phrases that quickly capture that relationship for the reader
• use simple words indicating time, such as: then, after, before, following,
later
• avoid fancy alternatives like: subsequent to, prior to, at which point in
time
• instead of referring to raw dates, use units of time, such as: hours, days,
months, years.
66. Here’s the original example, re-written:
“Dr. McTavish originally told the Plaintiff the pain running down her
leg was from a pulled hamstring. But a month later she reported
ongoing leg pain, and Dr. McTavish became concerned that there was
more serious injury. The Plaintiff returned to Dr. McTavish three more
times in the next two months. Each time complaining her leg pain
persisted. After the last visit, Dr. McTavish referred the Plaintiff to an
orthopedic surgeon, who diagnosed a herniated disc that was impinging
on the Plaintiff’s sciatic nerve.”
Did you miss the dates, understand what happened, and when?
67. What if you’re writing about a time-sensitive legal issue, and you need to
include specific dates, what to do then? Simple best way: calculate the
relevant time frames for the reader and state them explicitly.
Three examples:
• “On October 23, 2005, two weeks before the close of Discoveries, defence
counsel sent a letter seeking dates for the Plaintiff’s examination. Almost
two weeks later, on November 4, 2004, the Plaintiff’s lawyer responded
with two available dates.”
• “The Plaintiff learned that she had a possible negligence claim in March
21, 2005 which triggered the six-month discovery period against the City
Defendant. She served her Statement of Claim less than 5 months later, on
August 4, 2005.”
• ‘The Court ordered the Defendant to produce the document by February
13, 2005. Nevertheless the Defendant remained uncooperative –
producing the disputed Records more than two weeks beyond the Court’s
deadline, on March 3, 2005.”
Doing the math for the reader not only makes the sequencing of events
more obvious, but gives you the opportunity for strategic advocacy: to
drive home a point in a way you could not with raw dates alone.
(2) Headings – headings that make a positive statement and develop a logical
flow. See below.
(3) Conclusion – have a conclusion that picks up from your opening. Creates
a circle. See below.
(4) The one-two punch – ie: 2 follows 1. eg: George Bush ( or possibly one of
his speechwriters Michael Gerson) post September 11: “Great sorrow has
come to our country. And from that sorrow has come great resolve”.
(5) (Rolling) Triads – ie: 2 follows 1 and 3 follows 2 ( ideally with sequential
bridging, repetition of a key word to bridge from 1 to 2, repetition of a
different key word in 2 to bridge from 2 to 3). eg: George (or Michael): “
Whether we bring our enemies to justice or bring justice to our enemies,
justice will be done”.
Beware of clichés
69. Expressions worn thin by countless repetition are not persuasive and
should be avoided.
70. Everyone’s familiar with the expressions below – familiarity is precisely
the problem:
• Add insult to injury
• Bitter end
• Blind as a bat
• Turn for the worst
• Pitch black.
71. As a practical reality, most people reason from analogy based on their
experience. People decide what feels right. Many non-lawyers (and judges)
cannot easily accept a new proposition unless it’s a logical extension of an
already-held view. A simple analogy can go a long way toward
convincing your listener, either to confirm what they already accept, or
move one step sideways from an accepted position.
For example:
• Jehovah’s Witness religious rights case:
“A blood transfusion these days is like skating on thin ice”
• A firm of actuaries faced with a Discipline Committee, one of whose
members is from a competing firm:
“The legal equivalent of a cow wandering into an abattoir”
• Products liability:
“Letting the industry self-regulate according to a voluntary set of
standards and guidelines is like letting a shark guard the fish
tank/Colonel Sanders babysit the chickens”
“A smoke detector that’s rendered ineffective by an ordinary short-circuit
is like a life preserver that keeps you afloat until it gets wet”
“Before the factory worker could loosen her grip, her hand was yanked
into the machinery like a rag doll through an old wringer washer”
• After a rotary power lawnmower had hurled a rock into the eye of a 13-
year-old, the analogy used was:
“Toro had sent a four-wheel cannon into a residential neighbourhood”
Be credible
76. Treat every brief and factum as a chance to build your and your firm’s
credibility with the court.
77. Not every lawyer is brilliant, but every lawyer can be credible. A lawyer
who acknowledges in a strategic way the obvious challenges of their case
up front and with candor is going to be more credible throughout the
proceeding. Likewise, nothing will alienate the court more than the
appearance that you’re distorting the plain meaning of a case or
deliberately overlooking an important case or finding of fact.
urge, the more sales resistance you create and the more you start to sound
like the guy from Fred’s Water Beds on Saturday night TV.
81. Real persuasion takes place when the reader thinks the conclusion is his or
her own idea. Your job as a writer is to help them find the right ideas in
themselves that will lead them to decide the case your way.
Caring is contagious
87. If you’re passionate about what you write, about what you say, other
people will be too.
• add emphasis.
Citation, “at p. •“
92. Obviously double-check all cites. But also highlight (yup, with a yellow
highlighter) each key extract/sentence in your Book of Authorities/
Authorities tab so the judge doesn’t have to search for your point. An
(acceptable and better) alternative to highlighting is sidelining and
underlining the master copy — so you only do it once, it gets copied
through to all other copies, and you don’t have to highlight in
multiplicity.
93. Always when citing a case put the actual page/paragraph that your
point/quote is on — just giving the judge the standard cite with what
page the case starts on and forcing him/her to go read the whole case to
find a single sentence is a real judicial piss-off factor — if you’re in for a
vasectomy why insult the guy (or gal) with the knife?
94. Two lawyers (or, better, a lawyer and a non-lawyer) are generally better
than one. So, after you’ve done a few drafts, let someone who isn’t
familiar with the case have a look at it. Listen, don’t talk, or explain – if
you have to talk or explain, whatever you’ve written is not good enough.
A farmer friend of mine says, “When I talk I learn nothin’”.
95. We all (lawyers in particular) think we know what someone is going to
say when they’re partway through saying it — we don’t, because they
haven’t said it yet.
96. John Steinbeck: “No one wants advice — only corroboration”.
97. If the reader doesn’t understand your points, stumbles over a phrase, or
can’t cut through a thicket of verbiage, you’ve failed as a writer.
98. Don’t be shy to redraft – and redraft till you get it right. No serious writer
gets it right the first time — why should you? Louis Brandeis: “There’s
no such thing as good writing — only good rewriting”.
THE FACTUM
99. The importance of the factum is obvious when you consider it’s the central
document at all stages of an appeal or motion. Practically speaking, the
factum is quickly becoming more important than oral submissions. Given
their heavy workload and the limited time allotted for oral arguments,
there is a natural tendency among judges to come to a preliminary
103. “The first page rule”. The first page should say it all. Every factum should
contain an overview statement (no longer than one paragraph) that tells
the reader what the case is about, who did what to whom, what the issues
are, and outlines our position on those issues.
104. Tell your story in human terms, as if you’re explaining this to your fifteen-
year-old kid brother or sister (my own personal technique is to close the
office door, think I’m in a line-up at Tim Horton’s, I’ve just ordered a
medium double double, and cashier says “so what’s your case about?”).
Cultivate credibility
110. In your introduction and fact section, your goal is to build credibility and
motivate the judge to rule your way.
111. Credibility comes from the details. Be respectful, be detailed and be
reasonable in the relief you request.
112. Weak arguments will hurt your credibility. By showing a judge that you
are willing to lead her into error, you reduce the trust that you want the
judge to have in your other arguments.
Be brief
113. Most factums are too long. At rock bottom, most cases really aren’t that
complicated. Select the facts, events and legal arguments likely to control
the outcome of the case (and leave the rest out).
114. Too many factums are puffed up with all sorts of extra arguments.
Generally, this reflects the uncertainty of counsel as to which issue is
likely to grab the Court’s attention and the misguided belief that the
client’s interest is best served by presenting every conceivable argument,
like you’re a chef at a hotel putting on the biggest breakfast brunch
possible to impress the locals. The put-everything-in tactic generates a
large number of ‘throwaway’ arguments — and may tempt the Court
that’s what should be done with the rest of your factum.
lawyers. Writing legal argument is almost easy, but the facts are where
most of the time should be spent. After all, the facts are the context within
which the legal issues are decided and that factual context is therefore
highly determinative of the overall outcome.
121. Justice Laskin: “Judges strive to do justice between the litigants, and
almost always the facts show where justice lies. I call this the paradox of
appellate advocacy. Despite ‘patently unreasonable,’ despite Housen, and
despite deference to discretionary decisions, the facts matter far more than
the law in most appeals.”
122. Scenes or units of action that illustrate the theme are more engaging than
narrative summaries of facts or courtroom recitations of evidence.
Make it work
140. Tailor your arguments to what works. Sure, the other side’s case is a piece
of garbage. But you know what, the righteous do not always win. If
you’ve got the choice to win in your mind or in the courtroom, what
would be your choice?
142. Select the main ideas proving your conclusion, then arrange them in such
a way that the relationship they naturally bear to one another and to the
overall theme, together with all the main headings and subheadings,
drives the reader towards the conclusion we want them to reach.
Don’t hold anything back for oral argument — this isn’t Hollywood
143. Put all your best arguments into the factum. In the past some counsel
would save the best part (or a good part) for oral argument. Today written
submissions are much more important than they once were and so this is
no longer an advisable strategy (if it ever was). It’s possible to overcome
an inadequate factum during oral argument but it’s an uphill battle. Why
put yourself in the position if you don’t have to?
144. Jon Fauld’s “Series of Dots Theory of Advocacy”: in some cases it may be
strategically better to hold something back in written argument [explain
verbally].
The appellant’s factum: courts of appeal often presume trial judge got it right
145. The appellant should never forget that appeal courts often presume the
trial judge actually got it right. Since the odds are against you, it’s
especially important for the appellant to grab the judge’s attention
immediately and demonstrate that an error has been made.
Costs
154. Oh and one final thing: ask for costs — even at the S.C.C. a surprising
number of (non-Celtic) counsel forget to ask for them.
155. As my mother told me (and your mother told you): “if it’s worth doing,
it’s worth doing well”.*
*
Or as my grandfather would say when I tried to reply to my mother with any sentence
beginning with “But” – “Save yeer breath tae blaw on yeer pooridge.”
Selected Bibliography follows from which ideas in this non-paper are drawn, and which can be
consulted for further information.
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
BOOKS
Aldisert, Ruggero J. Winning on Appeal: Better Briefs and Oral Argument (New
York: Thomson Legal Publishing, 1992), c. 2, 8.
Berry, Edward Writing Reasons: A Handbook for Judges (Emond Montgomery Press,
1998).
Butt, Peter & Richard Castle. Modern Legal Drafting: A Guide to Using Clearer
Language (Cambridge 2001)
Kolb, Harold. A Writer`s Guide; The Essential Points (Harcourt Brace 1980).
Meehan, Eugene et al. Supreme Court of Canada Manual: Practice & Advocacy
(Canada Law Book, 2005), Chapter 10.
Mowat, Christine. A Plain Language Handbook for Legal Writers (Carswell, 1998).
Ross-Larson, Bruce. Go It Yourself: A Manual for Everyone Who Works With Words
(New York: W.W. Norton & Co. Ltd., 1996).
nd
Sopinka, John & Gelowitz, Mark. The Conduct of an Appeal (2 ed. Butterworths,
2000).
Stuesser, Lee. An Advocacy Primer (Toronto: Carswell, 1990), Chapters 2 and 12.
White, Robert B. & Hon. Joseph J. Stratton. The Appeal Book (Canada Law Book,
1999).
Zinsser, William. On Writing Well, 5th ed. (New York: HarperCollins, 1994).
Doody, Peter. “Rule 20 Motions - A useful tool for the practical litigator” in The
Pragmatic Litigator: Practicing Efficiently and Effectively in Hard Times (Toronto:
Canadian Bar Association-Ontario, 1994).
Foy, Patrick. “The Factum in Civil Appeals – 1994”. C.L.E.S. B.C., May 1994.
Garner, Bryan. “The Deep Issue: A New Approach to Framing Legal Questions”
in The Scribes of Legal Writing, Vol 5, 1994-95 3-4.
Garner, Bryan A. “Issue-framing: the upshot of it all”. Trial, April 1997, p.74.
Laskin, Hon. John I., “Forget the Windup and Make the Pitch: Some Suggestions
for Writing More Persuasive Factums”, The Advocates’ Society Journal, Summer
1999.
http://www.ontariocourts.on.ca/court_of_appeal/speeches/forget.htm
Laskin, Hon. John I., “What persuades (or, What’s going on inside the judge’s
mind)”, The Advocates’ Society Journal, June 2004, page 3.
Lepofsky, M. David, “The unsung art of written advocacy: Strategies, tips, and a
call for unorthodoxy”, The Advocates’ Society Journal, Summer 2004, page 10.
McElhaney, James, W. “Close with a Big Finish” (November 2002) A.B.A. Journal
56.
McElhaney, James, W. “Good words for writing” (May 2002) A.B.A. Journal 50.
Rutherford, The Hon. Douglas. “Just Write for Reading”, C.C.L.A. New Lawyers
& Articling Students Group, Ottawa (March 8, 2001).
Newspaper/Magazine Articles
Bailey, William. “Tie Your Case Together With A Good Theme” in Trial,
(February 2001) 58-63
Binnie, The Hon. Ian. "A Survivor's Guide to Advocacy in the Supreme Court of
Canada" in The Advocates' Society Journal (August 1999) 13-19.
Blair, The Hon. R.A. "Oral Advocacy before Superior Court Judges" in The
Advocates' Society Journal (August 1999) 26-29.
Blue, Lisa & Hirschhorn, Robert. “Lessons From the Campaign Trail”, Trial, July
2005 p. 26.
Catzman, The Hon. Marvin. "The Wrong Stuff: How to Lose Appeals in the
Court of Appeal" in The Advocates Society Journal (August 2000) 3-5.
Daisley, Brad. "'Focus' the Key to Winning Cases, Binnie tells Seminar" in The
Lawyers Weekly (July 21, 2000) 6.
Garner, Brian A. "Issue-Framing: The Upshot of it All" in Trial (April 1999) 74-76.
Hamlin, Sonya. “Who Are Today’s Jurors and How Do You Reach Them?” in
Litigation (Spring 2001) 11.
Keenan, Don. “When a client is your child” in Trial (September 2002) 38-40.
Kimble, Joseph. "A Modern Wish List for Legal Writing" in Trial (January 2000)
89-92.
Maxx, D.T. “How 2,988 Words Changed a Presidency”, Ottawa Citizen, Oct.13,
2001, B4-6
McElhaney, James. “Balanced Persuasion: Let the Facts Characterize the Case,
Without Adding Your Spin” in American Bar Association Journal, (March 2002) 60-
61.
Nolan, Kenneth. “More Than Just Words” in Litigation, (Spring 2001) 66.
Stolley, Scott Patrick. “Aphorisms to Write By” in For the Defence, May 2000.
Vesper, Thomas J., Orr, Richard. “Making time palpable by using per diem
arguments” in Trial (October 2002) 59.