Version 3 also simplifies the interface to allow users to see all editing suggestions for an entire document with just one click of the Rake button. With more than 600 new editing algorithms and 900 enhancements to existing algorithms, WordRake 3 offers 25 percent more edits and even greater accuracy, according to a company announcement.
#Wordrake and briefcatch code
For example, you could show off and be like, “Inconcomitantly, the Petitioner enumerated insuccinctly the applicable code section.” Or say, “Petitoner is incorrect in his application of the code section.” You’ve saved the judge time from needing to look up what you’re saying, and you’ve made your point.WordRake, the editing and proofreading add-in for Microsoft Word and Outlook that is designed for lawyers and other professionals, released its version 3 yesterday. You want your arguments to be clear and forthright, without being banal. Did he or she put the idea into your head in a meaningful way the first time through? Well, then they probably failed. See if you understand what the author is trying to impart. Hemingway jabbed him right back and said, “Poor Faulkner, he thinks big emotions can only come from big words.” Faulkner famously took a shot at Hemingway, saying Hemingway’s writing was simplistic. Hemingway wrote in a manner and edited himself tremendously to get to the essence of the idea he was trying to convey. So if your professors actually want to be helpful, AND if your professors actually practiced law for a good while (unlike my school), then check in with them.
#Wordrake and briefcatch professional
Law schools are traditionally structured to get the top 10-20% of the class into great jobs that pay well, at the expense of the bottom 80%, unlike most other graduate professional schools like medicine, where they actually want all of their students to be doctors (you’ll never see some malarkey like “MD-preferred jobs). Try to get an understanding of what you are supposed to be doing. So back to my question, are you still in law school? If so, do you actually have a good system at your school, like Belmont does, wherein you have professors who actually try to teach things? If so, then first and foremost, go to office hours. If I asked anything about cases, about the purpose of some arbitrary rule, he wouldn’t answer and would say that’s my responsibility to learn. after a couple of visits to Professor Groot’s office hours I quickly learned never to go to his office hours again.
#Wordrake and briefcatch how to
But it was this mindset that the professors at “elite” schools have, that their role is to teach you how to think like a lawyer, not to teach what lawyers do, or how to write better, etc. An 80 year old can improve his writing, just as a five year old can. Writing is just putting on paper ideas you have, and then structuring what you write to your goal and audience. Everyone can improve their writing, always. That was such a hogwash, ivory tower, straight up BS answer. Professor Groot replied, “If you’re not already good at writing by the time you get here, there’s nothing you can do to improve that in law school.” You know, the thing that is important for lawyers to do, pretty much the whole reason we went to law school.
A student asked professor Groot, a “well-respected” professor, how to improve their legal writing. This was the time to ask those things that we did not know we needed to ask before law school. That is to say, I went to Washington and Lee Law in the mid-2000s, and about 3 weeks in to first semester 1L they had a question and answer session with a professor. Don’t be that person.Īre you a 1L, or first year of practice? If you are a 1L, what school? I ask because, sadly, many law schools still hold to the downright stupid pedagogy of poorly-instituted “Socratic” method, combined with a sink-or-swim stance on actually learning anything from classes. These are obviously not literal examples just concepts, though I have seen some really bad written turds similar to this where there is one original sentence in a sea of impenetrable cut and paste boilerplate.
(“It is respectfully submitted that the plaintiff’s cause of action is fatally deficient” vs “the plaintiff had to show x. Here is why the court should dismiss it”) cut out legalese and write like a normal person (“this motion is brought pursuant to blah blah” vs “this case is about this asshole doing something dumb.
brutally cut out passive voice (the “complaint should be dismissed” vs “the court should dismiss the complaint”) Master these few things and you will be heads and shoulders above the vast majority of lawyers: I’ve spent most of my career laser focused on improving my legal writing (and anyone else in my office who actually wants to improve). I’d recommend taking a look at Justice Gorsuch and Kagan’s writing.
0 kommentar(er)
