As lawyers, we must not, in hot pursuit of common law, outrun common sense. The dread of that eventuality prompted this book. Uncommon Law of Learned Writing 2.0 promotes common sense in legal language. Plain language, which is commonsensical, broadens access to legal documents, thus democratizing the law. If democracy is government of the people, by the people, and for the people, law is the language in which government interacts with the people—it’s the language of democracy. The people whose government speaks through law must understand what is said. No democratic society should brook legalese—a dense, verbose dialect known only to lawyers. What then should society do to redress the lawyer-induced obscurity? A Shakespearean character had an alarming proposal: “The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.” Apparently, that proposal was not enthusiastically endorsed, which explains why we’re still here. A milder remedy—enrolling lawyers in language classes—has been mooted, which explains why this book is in your hands. Uncommon Law of Learned Writing 2.0 motivates lawyers to prefer plain language to the legalese and verbosity that have besmirched legal writing for centuries. This book is as sweeping and authoritative a treatment of its subject as you can find anywhere.

To validate their institutional continuance as a branch of government, writes Chinua Asuzu, judges must make sound decisions. They must also articulate and express those decisions efficiently and comprehensibly. This book shows how. This book will help judges, arbitrators, and other decision-writers master the art and science of judicial writing. A most welcome guide, Judicial Writing: A Benchmark for the Benchsets a high, yet attainable, standard of excellence for writing judicial decisions. It will no doubt become the reference point for judging judges and their judgments. Chinua Asuzu is that uncommon lawyer who wrote The Uncommon Law of Learned Writing. His other works includeAnatomy of a Brief andFair Hearing in Nigeria. A versatile arbitrator, Asuzu served as an administrative-law judge at the Tax Appeal Tribunal in Nigeria from 2010 to 2016.He is now the Senior Partner of Assizes Lawfirm, a team of tax lawyers.

An advocate submits a brief to a court or tribunal to persuade it to decide the cause or matter in favor of the advocates client or position. The key word is persuade. Too often, advocates forget this and write to please themselves. They write to themselves instead of to the court. They write in chest-thumping prose and style. Advocates will do well to keep in mind that in advocacy, persuasion is all that matters. This book teaches persuasive written advocacy. It shows advocatesof all ranks, in all jurisdictions, in all proceedings, before all courts or tribunalshow to prepare and present winning and winsome arguments. Because of its emphasis on winning, the books pedagogy blends law, linguistics, logic, psychology, rhetoric, and semantics.

As lawyers, we must not, in hot pursuit of common law, outrun common sense. The dread of that eventuality prompted this book. Learned Writing promotes common sense in legal language. Plain language, which is commonsensical, broadens access to legal documents, thus democratizing the law. If democracy is government of the people, by the people, and for the people, law is the language in which government interacts with the people—it is the language of democracy. The people whose government speaks through law must understand what is said. No democratic society should brook legalese, a dense, verbose dialect known only to lawyers. What then should society do to redress the lawyer-induced obscurity? A Shakespearean character had an alarming proposal: “The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.” Apparently, that proposal was not enthusiastically endorsed, which explains why we’re still here. A milder remedy—enrolling lawyers in language classes—has been muted, which explains why this book is in your hands. Learned Writing motivates lawyers to prefer plain language to the legalese and verbosity that have besmirched legal writing for centuries. This book is as sweeping a treatment of its subject as you can find anywhere.

Bringing together the theory, structure, and practice of legal reasoning in an accessible style, this book explains how to uncover and exploit the mysteries of legal materials. It draws the student into the techniques of legal analysis and argument and the operation of precedent and statutory interpretation.

Written by leading authors with extensive experience in both teaching and practice, this established and trusted title equips the student with all the techniques of legal research, analysis, and argument they will need for their law course and beyond. Holland and Webb take an engaging andpractical approach with examples and exercises throughout which allow students to develop their knowledge and their reasoning skills making this an ideal text for first year students.Digital formats and resourcesThe eleventh edition is available for students and institutions to purchase in a variety of formats, and is supported by online resources.- The ebook offers a mobile experience and convenient access along with functionality tools, navigation features and links that extra learning support: www.oxfordtextbooks.co.uk/ebooks http://www.oxfordtextbooks.co.uk/ebooks- The accompanying online resources include multiple choice questions for each chapter, links to useful websites and a guide to using Halsbury's Laws.For futher insight into legal skills, visit legaleducation.wordpress.comlegaleducation.wordpress.com.

Reprint of the original, first published in 1872. The publishing house Anatiposi publishes historical books as reprints. Due to their age, these books may have missing pages or inferior quality. Our aim is to preserve these books and make them available to the public so that they do not get lost.

This history of legal language slices through the polysyllabic thicket of legalese. The text shows to what extent legalese is simply a product of its past and demonstrates that arcane vocabulary is not an inevitable feature of our legal system.