That is the claim made by Profesor Kenneth Chestek at Indiana University School of Law. In his law review article, The Plot Thickens: The Appellate Brief as Story, Professor Chestek is not urging a departure from truth. Instead, he urges appellate attorneys to make their briefs more interesting. Professor Chestek argues:
“The premise for this article is that legal writing need not be—nay, should not be—boring. When we write legal briefs to a court, we are trying to resolve some human conflict. That’s inherently interesting stuff! People like to hear about what other people are doing, or what has happened to them. If something bad has happened, many people want to help out in some way. It is human nature to feel empathy for somebody caught up in a conflict, and to want the conflict to be resolved.”
In effect, Professor Chestek is urging appellate attorneys to use some of the same story-telling tools employed by good trial attorneys. “Trial lawyers know that they have to tell their client’s story to the jury, and the story has to resonate with the jury.”
File under: Appellate Writing Tips…
The Opening Brief points to a law review article by Kenneth Chestek entitled The Plot Thickens: The Appellate Brief as Story. It says that lawyers should use appellate briefs to “tell a story.” I have to admit that I am…