We’ve all long heard about writing practices to avoid, including run-on sentences, excessive passive voice, and nominalization. This webinar not only discusses how those habits can damage briefs, but also explores a key habit brief-writers should embrace: using strong, precise verbs, which are the engine of a persuasive sentence. Panelists also exchange views about finding the most persuasive voice and tone, as well as the right temperature for rhetoric. To view the accompanying webinar, go to: https://www.financialpoise.com/financial-poise-webinars/style-2021/

1. 1

2. 2
Practical and entertaining education for
attorneys, accountants, business owners and
executives, and investors.

4. Disclaimer
The material in this webinar is for informational purposes only. It should not be considered
legal, financial or other professional advice. You should consult with an attorney or other
appropriate professional to determine what may be best for your individual needs. While
Financial Poise™ takes reasonable steps to ensure that information it publishes is accurate,
Financial Poise™ makes no guaranty in this regard.
4

5. Meet the Faculty
MODERATOR:
Robert Michaels - Environmental Law & Policy Center
PANELISTS:
Stephen Brodsky - Kaufman Dolowich Voluck LLP
Gerald Meyer - MoloLamken LLP
Susan Valentine - Valentine Austriaco & Bueschel, P.C.
5

6. About This Webinar
Style
We’ve all long heard about writing practices to avoid, including run-on sentences, excessive
passive voice, and nominalization. This webinar not only discusses how those habits can
damage briefs, but also explores a key habit brief-writers should embrace: using strong,
precise verbs, which are the engine of a persuasive sentence. Panelists also exchange views
about finding the most persuasive voice and tone, as well as the right temperature for
rhetoric.
6

7. About This Series
Persuasive Brief Writing
Especially in federal district court, pre-trial litigation occurs almost entirely “on the papers,” with few, if
any, oral arguments or courtroom presentations. If litigators want a claim to survive or be dismissed,
discovery to be permitted or denied, or evidence to be admitted or barred, they must persuade the court
in writing. But mastering the craft of persuasive legal writing can take decades and require shedding
ingrained old habits and defying some common expectations. Join a panel including seasoned litigators,
two former legal writing instructors, and a sitting judge discuss the structure, substance and style of
effective brief-writing. This series will help new and more experienced litigators sharpen a set of crucial
skills that can, and should, continue developing throughout their careers.
Each Financial Poise Webinar is delivered in Plain English, understandable to investors, business owners, and
executives without much background in these areas, yet is of primary value to attorneys, accountants, and other
seasoned professionals. Each episode brings you into engaging, sometimes humorous, conversations designed to
entertain as it teaches. Each episode in the series is designed to be viewed independently of the other episodes so that
participants will enhance their knowledge of this area whether they attend one, some, or all episodes.
7

8. Episodes in this Series
#1: Structure and Organization
Premiere date: 1/28/21
#2: Style
Premiere date: 2/25/21
8

9. Episode #2
Style
9

10. Eyes on the Prize
• Remember: endgame is to persuade the court to do (or not do) something
• Stylistic choices should boost odds of persuasion
• Be attentive to court’s:
 procedures/rules
 concerns
 time
 customs
 tendencies
10

11. Trust and Sobriety
11

12. Credibility is King
• Avoid hyperbole, snark, cuteness, or sarcasm
• Be faithful to record and cited cases
• Don’t hide from opponent’s arguments or cases
• Avoid stretching law past breaking point
12

13. Writing Sentences that Move
• Verb = engine of every sentence
• Archetypal sentence: “Bill punched Tom.”
 Concrete, readily identifiable subject in close proximity to:
 Vivid, precise verb
• Use the most specific and definite language you can
• Lost? Ask: Who’s doing something? What are they doing? Who or what is it being done
to?
13

14. 4 Often (But Not Always) Deadly Sins
14

15. Sin 1: Passive Voice
• Passive v. active voice: is the sentence subject performing the verb/doing something? If
yes, active.
• Examples:
 Passive: “Under the contract, the parties were required to submit to arbitration.”
 Active: “The contract required the parties to arbitrate their dispute.”
 Passive: “The contract was signed after the first shipment of widgets were delivered
by the seller.”
 Active: “The parties signed the contact after the seller delivered the first shipment of
widgets.”
15

16. Sin 1: Passive Voice
• Why avoid passive voice?
 Far less concise than active voice
 Adds needless (and weak) words like “was,” “were,” an “by the”
 Often unclear about who is acting
• Reasons to use passive voice
 “Doer” is unknown (e.g., “The laptop was stolen.”)
 To avoid responsibility (e.g., “Although the deadline was missed, Plaintiff’s petition
was still filed.”)
16

17. Sin 2: Nominalization
• Nominalization = using a noun created from a verb + a helper verb instead of verb itself
• Examples:
 The parties held discussions about how to proceed.
 The court’s holding was that one phone call did not establish personal jurisdiction.
 Defendant made an agreement to stop using the trademark.
• Why avoid it?
 Like passive voice, it adds words, weakens sentences, and confuses readers
17

18. Sin 2: Nominalization
• Fix it by finding and using the real verb:
 No: The parties held discussions about how to proceed.
 Yes: The parties discussed how to proceed.
 No: The court’s holding was that one phone call did not establish personal jurisdiction.
 Yes: The court held that one phone call did not establish personal jurisdiction.
 No: Defendant made an agreement to stop using the trademark.
 Yes: Defendant agreed to stop using the trademark.
18

19. Sin 3: Abstract Sentence Subjects
• Using abstract concepts as sentence subjects instead of concrete subjects, like people or
institutional actors
• Often goes accompanied by passive voice and/or nominalization
• Examples:
• The principle that __________is well-established in the caselaw.
• The requirement to accommodate students is imposed by the regulation.
• A determination that no discrimination occurred was contained in the letter dated May
1, 2020.
19

20. Sin 3: Abstract Sentence Subjects
• Fix by identifying the concrete actor and making them/it the subject
 No: The principle that __________is well-established in the caselaw.
 Yes: Courts routinely hold that ____________.
 No: The requirement to accommodate students is imposed by the regulation.
 Yes: The regulation requires schools to accommodate students
 No: A determination that no discrimination occurred was contained in the letter dated
May 1, 2020.
 Yes: The letter dated May 1, 2020 determined that ______ did not discriminate.
20

21. A Word About Paragraphs
• Don’t make them too long (rarely more than half a page)
• Use logical breaks
• Vary sentence structure (avoid “On March 22, 2018, …. On April 8, 2018, …. Etc.”)
• Relatedly, use frequent headings and sub-headings (no more than 3-4 pages without a
heading or sub-heading)
21

22. Nomenclature and Abbreviations
• Avoid “alphabet soup” abbreviations for parties and documents; e.g., for Heritage
Community Bank, use “Heritage,” not “HCB”; use “Complaint” instead of “SAC” for Second
Amended Complaint
• Follow Blue Book, but if not, at least be consistent
• In case parentheticals and discussions, use “plaintiff” and “defendant” unless proper name
needed to avoid confusion
22

23. Otherwise Avoid Clutter (1)
• Limit unnecessary factual detail
 Is detail relevant to standard, emphasized by a party, or necessary for story to make
sense? If not, exclude
 Tell the story once; avoid repetition
 Be vigilant re: unnecessary dates, times, and proper names
• Use bulleted lists where multiple examples support a single point
23

24. Otherwise Avoid Clutter (2)
• Avoid fancy words (e.g., use “avoid” instead of “eschew,” “forgo,” or “abjure”)
• Avoid formal “testifying police language” (e.g., “vehicle” instead of “car” or “truck”)
• Avoid “the fact that” (“that” usually suffices) and “the question of whether” (“whether”
typically suffices)
• Use positive instead of negative form (“Plaintiff often did not pay the required installments”
should be “Plaintiff missed __ payments”)
24

25. Rules to Follow
• Use parallel structure – presenting lists or other phrases with similar content or function
using the same tense and other outward form
 No: Plaintiff alleged that defendant failed to return his phone calls, ignored his emails,
and was not present for their scheduled meeting.
 Yes: Plaintiff alleged that defendant failed to return his phone calls, ignored his
emails, and missed their scheduled meeting.
• Use one space after period
• Place footnote calls after/outside sentence-ending punctuation
• Generally use serial a/k/a Oxford comma to avoid confusion
• Use semi-colons between longer (more than 2-3 word) list items
25

26. Rules to Break
• Split infinitives so long as it sounds natural (e.g., “The University plans to more than
double the number of counselors.”)
• Use contractions freely but not excessively (unless you know judge doesn’t like them)
• Begin sentences with “and” or “but” as appropriate
• Freely end sentences with prepositions (e.g., “Plaintiff was the third person they spoke
to.”)
26

27. Visuals
• Limit bolding, italicizing, or underlining text for emphasis; you don’t want to be “scream-y”
• Freely use bulleted lists
• Don’t make footnotes too small
• For longer documents, consider a serif font like Century Schoolbook; MUCH easier on the
eyes (some federal appeals courts require it)
27

28. Best Practices
• Re-read and revise as much as time and budget allows
• Get a second set of eyes
• Consider printing whole document and laying all pages (at least of each section) on table
– lets you see the big picture
• Read sentences out loud to ensure proper rhythm and flow
• Consider deleting your favorite sentence: it may be too cute or clever
28

29. Rewards of Good Writing
• Less reader confusion
• Less reader frustration
• Less reader boredom
• Less paper wasted
• More accurate analysis
• More persuasive arguments
29

30. About the Faculty
30

31. About The Faculty
Robert Michaels - rmichaels@elpc.org
Rob Michaels is a Senior Attorney working to protect clean water, wildlife, biodiversity and
forests in the Midwest. Mr. Michaels is an experienced plaintiffs-side litigation attorney with 30
years of federal court complex litigation experience as a Partner at the Robertson, Curley &
Clayton law firm and the Goldstein & McClintock law firm. He previously was a Staff Attorney
and Project Director at the Environmental Law & Policy Center; University of Chicago Law
School Bigelow Fellow; and Associate at the Mayer Brown & Platt law firm following a federal
court clerkship with Judge Robert Hall (N.D. Ga.).
31

32. About The Faculty
Stephen Brodsky - sbrodsky@kdvlaw.com
Stephen L. Brodsky is a Partner of Kaufman Dolowich & Voluck, LLP and practices out of the
firm’s New York City and Long Island offices. Stephen has practiced complex commercial
litigation for more than twenty years. He has a broad practice, and his clients span industries.
Over his career, he has litigated significant, high-dollar matters in federal and state courts
across the United States. He has argued at the trial and appellate levels and served as trial
counsel in both bench and jury trials. Stephen also represents his clients in arbitrations,
mediation and administrative proceedings. Finally, he resolves his clients’ disputes by direct
negotiations and without formal litigation. Stephen is known for his creative problem solving
and thoughtful advocacy. He is rated AV Preeminent by his clients, peers and opposing
counsel, the highest professional rating.
To read more, go to https://www.financialpoise.com/webinar-faculty/stephen-l-brodsky/
32

33. About The Faculty
Gerald Meyer - gmeyer@mololamken.com
Gerald Meyer’s practice focuses on complex business litigation, white collar criminal matters and
investigations, and appellate litigation. He has represented businesses, senior corporate officials, and
individuals in a broad array of subject matters, including securities litigation, class actions, antitrust law,
and constitutional law. He has tried cases to verdict and drafted and argued dispositive, discovery, and
evidentiary motions in trial courts across the country. He has argued appeals before the Seventh Circuit,
and has briefed appeals in the Supreme Court of the United States and numerous courts of appeals.
Before joining MoloLamken, Mr. Meyer was an associate with Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom
LLP in Chicago. He has represented companies and individuals in a wide range of tax planning matters,
including mergers and acquisitions, restructurings, securities offerings, and issues involving tax-exempt
organizations. Mr. Meyer also served as a law clerk to Judge Robert R. Beezer of the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and to Judge G. Steven Agee of the United States Court of Appeals for
the Fourth Circuit.
33

34. About The Faculty
Susan Valentine - svalentine@vablawfirm.com
Susan Valentine is a founding partner of Valentine Austriaco & Bueschel, P.C. For more
than 30years, Susan has handled disputes, and when necessary, actively litigated a wide
range of matters. From 1997- 2000, she served on the full-time faculty of IIT Chicago-Kent
College of Law, teaching Professional Responsibility and Legal Research and Writing and
serving as the Faculty Adviser to the Moot Court Honor Society. Susan advises clients on a
variety of sensitive business issues, and her clients appreciate her practical, timely, and cost-
effective approach to their issues. She has extensive experience litigating disputes that
involve insured depository institutions and in representing business entities in commercial
matters, ranging from breach-of-contract issues to internal investigations that involve fraud
and other misconduct. She has also represented receivers, liquidators, and trustees in the
investigation and litigation of matters involving professional liability, contracts, fidelity bonds,
insurance, and reinsurance.
34

35. Questions or Comments?
If you have any questions about this webinar that you did not get to ask during the live
premiere, or if you are watching this webinar On Demand, please do not hesitate to email us
at info@financialpoise.com with any questions or comments you may have. Please include
the name of the webinar in your email and we will do our best to provide a timely response.
IMPORTANT NOTE: The material in this presentation is for general educational purposes
only. It has been prepared primarily for attorneys and accountants for use in the pursuit of
their continuing legal education and continuing professional education.
35

36. About Financial Poise
36
DailyDAC LLC, d/b/a Financial Poise™ provides
continuing education to attorneys, accountants,
business owners and executives, and investors. It’s
websites, webinars, and books provide Plain English,
entertaining, explanations about legal, financial, and
other subjects of interest to these audiences.
Visit us at www.financialpoise.com
Our free weekly newsletter, Financial Poise
Weekly, updates you on new articles published
on our website and Upcoming Webinars you
may be interested in.
To join our email list, please visit:
https://www.financialpoise.com/subscribe/