Legal Argumentation (2022 ed., fall 2021 version)

This is the second, and still profoundly drafty, version of the legal-writing textbook that I premiered last year. You can read all about it in last year’s blog post. I welcome your feedback. I’m really hoping to have all the chapters finished before next year’s edition. Here it is: https://rhetoricked.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Legal-Argumentation-fall-2021-ver.-FINAL.pdf

LWI 2018: Sessions on empirical study of legal communication

The schedule for the Legal Writing Institute 2018 biennial conference in Milwaukee, July 11 — July 14, is published (version as of June 27), and it looks terrific, with a great focus on pedagogy and pedagogical research in the field! This blog post is about a subset of the sessions, those devoted to empirical study of legal communication.  In that category, I include any study that systematically examines some class of legal communication outside the law-school context (so, not including classroom and pedagogical research). I’m excited to see scholars pursuing such projects. I’ve made the argument in the past that Read More …

‘Irreparable harm’ and legal arguments by analogy and example

I’m excited! My proposal for the 8th ISSA Conference on Argumentation in Amsterdam in July 2014 has been accepted. Of course, I still have plenty of work to do to get ready! Here’s my abstract: This paper presents the results of a pilot empirical study of written legal arguments and oral reports of authors’ cognition to explore the following research questions: Do American lawyers perceive differences between arguments by analogy and arguments by example, and if so, how are those differences represented in their argumentative writing? Scott Brewer (1996), Lloyd Wienreb (2005; 2007), and Richard Posner (2006) engaged in a Read More …