Click to return home

Writing Tips

Some Advice

  1. A research paper requires substantial research. Don't cite class lectures. Cite the relevant literature. Use it to support your conclusions, or if you disagree with other commentators, explain why your position is superior.
  2. Cite print sources when possible. Wikipedia is not an authoritative source.
  3. Use the Bluebook rules of citation and style. The basics are not that hard.
  4. Use footnotes, not endnotes. Number the pages.
  5. Use an organization with Roman numerals for major headings, letters for subheadings, Arabic numerals for subsubheadings, etc.
  6. Stick to the third person. Stay away from "I" and "you."
  7. It is bad form to write that courts or judges "believe" or "think." Try these verbs instead.
  8. Use quotation marks when quoting more than four or five words.  Do not just change or two in the middle of a sentence and take credit for someone else's work.
  9. A spellchecker does tell whether you have used the right word. For instance, "precedents" and "precedence" have different meanings. The usual term for a line of cases that elaborates on or modifies the holding of an earlier one is "progeny," not "prodigy."  Lawyers do not "site" cases.  (No, I did not make these examples up. They come from student papers.)
  10. Proofread! Proofread! And proofread again! Treat the paper as you would a memorandum or brief filed with a court. Even small mistakes diminish your credibility.

Mistakes You Do Not Want to Make

Evidence II, Spring 1992
  • All issues are mute since [plaintiff] did not obtain copyright until 1981.
  • In DNA testing, your jeans tell the truth.
  • No evidence [was introduced] accounting for what happened to the vile overnight. (Referring to DNA kept in a vial with a questionable chain of custody.)
  • If Peter Huber is right, this would be admitted since junk science runs amok in our courts.
Scientific Evidence, Spring 1993
  • Dr. Dune is a dermatologist who might not pass mustard if his qualifications were questioned.
Evidence, Fall 1993
  • No, I never read that stuff. It's too confusing. (Answer in class of a student who disagreed with the professor's interpretation of of Federal Rule of Evidence 703 and was asked whether he had read the Advisory Committee Note to the rule.)
Employment Discrimination, Spring 1994
  • Generally the court may tow the statutory period, to promote equity, [but] it wouldn't constitute towing the statutory period.
Scientific Evidence, Fall 2006
  • An appellate court has expressly held in dictum that retrograde extrapolation may still be used . . . .
  • It might be possible for defense council to introduce tests . . . .
  • While the over breath doctrine is usually reserved for First Amendment challenges, the court analyzed the possible over breath of the statute under the Fourteenth Amendment.