Ed. Note: This article is the third of five installments in our Writing to Persuade: An Appellate Lawyer’s Guide to Legal Writing series. Read Part One and Part Two.
Last time, we talked about macro strategies for making your legal writing more accessible, using tables of contents wisely and structuring your brief in a logical order that tracks both the relief you’re requesting and the strength of your legal argument.
In this edition, I want to address how to make individual arguments more accessible. Law school taught us to use the IRAC (issue, rule, application, conclusion) and CREAC (conclusion, rule, explanation, application, conclusion) structures for legal analysis. Whatever the merit of those structures (and I don’t think they have much), they elide one of the most important aspects of good legal writing, making sure that each paragraph in your brief flows together, makes a single point, and convinces your reader.
A brief isn’t just a collection of paragraphs. It’s a collection of thoughts intentionally laid on top of each other to convey a bigger point. So, once you’ve decided on how you want to structure your brief, it’s time to start building your argument.
Use Topic Sentences Wisely
We’ve discussed headings as part of the table of contents. Headings are great for steering a reader to a particular part of your brief. But they cannot be the only way you drive your reader’s attention forward. That’s where topic sentences come in.
If you think of headings as the foundation of your organizational structure, topic sentences are the pillars and trusses on which the rest of your argument hangs.
When I finalize a brief, it’s my hope that my reader will be able to read each topic sentence and, in conjunction with my headings, understand what the brief is about, even if the reader does not read my argument with great detail. The goal is twofold. First, the structure allows a judge or law clerk to quickly skim the brief to determine where to find the argument they’re focused on. Second, it acknowledges the reality that most judges read electronically (either on laptops or tablets). Those reading electronically are much more likely to engage in “F-pattern” reading, meaning that they read the first few lines of a paragraph and then skim the rest.
Crafting a strong topic sentence is a challenge in itself. Every paragraph in your brief should begin with a sentence that tells the reader what that paragraph will establish: it announces the point you’re about to prove, and the rest of the paragraph delivers on that promise. Judges reading under time pressure often skim by reading only the first sentence of each paragraph.
If your topic sentences are vague, you’ve wasted valuable real estate. For example, avoid saying things like “Plaintiff is entitled to damages.” Try instead something more explanatory, like “Plaintiff is entitled to recover consequential damages because Defendant’s breach of contract caused Plaintiff to lose two months’ of profits.” The second topic sentence gives the reader a clear understanding of what you’re going to prove in the paragraph, while the first leaves your argument open to interpretation.
As you write, you’ll probably notice that connecting your topic sentences on a paragraph-by-paragraph basis is challenging. It should be. When I’m unable to make a logical connection between two topic sentences, it usually forces me to rewrite one or both paragraphs, or at least to separate them out into multiple smaller paragraphs, to ensure that the idea that I’m trying to convey comes through clearly. Perfecting this approach takes practice, and even then, you will often find yourself writing and rewriting to make sure that your brief flows.
Use Signposts to Connect Paragraphs
Sometimes, groups of paragraphs are related enough to fall under the same heading, but distinct enough that even the best topic sentence won’t make it flow with the rest of your section. Consider, perhaps, what happens when you finish building your affirmative argument and switch to tearing down what your opponent has argued or likely will argue.
That’s where signposts are useful to guide your reader through the overall structure of your argument. For example, rather than saying something declarative, like “Defendant’s contrary arguments are wrong,” consider something that calls back to your overall argument and moves your point forward. Return, for example, to the consequential damages example. In that case, a better signpost might be something along the lines of “Despite this evidence confirming that the contract contemplates consequential damages, Defendant disagrees.” It’s a small change, but an important one. The first example simply declares that your opponent is wrong. But the second calls back to your earlier analysis, thus driving the argument forward; from context, the reader knows that the next segment of your argument deals with your opponent’s contrary interpretation of the evidence.
Connecting paragraphs may be important even within an individual segment of your argument. When crafting longer arguments, for example, use clear signposts to help readers track your analysis.
There are an incalculable number of ways to orient your reader to your argument. When presenting multiple reasons supporting a position, phrases like “to start,” “next,” and “finally” help readers maintain their place. So, too, do numbers, like “First,” “Second,” and “Third.” These signposts are especially useful when you have a list of things that support a legal conclusion. For instance, you can tell the Court that “three factors support this conclusion,” and then introduce each factor. The numbered structure tells the court what to expect and makes each factor easy to locate on re-reading.
Some signposts are superior to others. Novice writers often rely heavily on words like “therefore” or “however.” But those clunky words are long and slow your reader down.
Don’t Be Afraid to Share Your Work
Before finalizing your brief’s organization, step back and evaluate it from your reader’s perspective. Try reading only your headings and topic sentences; they should tell a coherent story even in isolation. This exercise often reveals organizational weaknesses that might otherwise go unnoticed. If your topic sentences jump from establishing a legal standard, to addressing a counterargument, and then back to applying the standard, your reader will feel that disorientation. Keeping counterarguments grouped together, rather than scattered throughout your affirmative analysis, usually creates a cleaner progression.
Share your brief with colleagues who aren’t familiar with the case. Their fresh perspective can highlight areas where your organization creates confusion or fails to effectively guide readers through your arguments. Pay particular attention to their questions about how different sections relate to each other, as these often signal needed improvements in your transitions or overall structure. If a colleague asks why one section comes before another, that’s a sign your brief isn’t doing its job. Even if you have a good reason for the ordering, you may need a transitional sentence to make that reason clear to the reader.
Conclusion
Effective transitions can take many forms. Sometimes, the logical connection between paragraphs is best maintained through linking phrases, such as referring to “those arguments” discussed in the preceding paragraph. In other instances, parallel structures or carefully chosen synonyms can create subtle but effective bridges between ideas. After arguing that the defendant breached a duty, for instance, you might begin the damages section with: “That breach caused substantial harm.” The word “breach” links back to the previous section while “harm” points forward to your damages analysis.
Remember that effective organization isn’t about following rigid rules but about serving your readers’ needs. The best structure for any brief depends on your specific arguments, the procedural context, and your strategic goals. By keeping these principles in mind while remaining flexible in their application, you can create briefs that not only present your arguments clearly but make them a pleasure to read.
