Browse the Articles in the BriefCatch Content Library!
Welcome to the BriefCatch Content Library, a brand-new repository of insight and innovation for legal professionals, scholars, and enthusiasts. In this Library, we are excited to present a comprehensive collection of articles authored by the renowned legal writing expert, Ross Guberman.
The articles included in the BriefCatch Content Library span across an array of topics, including persuasive legal writing, strategic argument structure, and innovative rhetoric. These pieces are not just theoretical discussions, but practical guides that are infused with illustrative examples, tips, and tricks that have proven successful in practice. Every piece is a potential masterclass in legal writing.
Browse our articles below. Happy reading, learning, and growing with BriefCatch!
Get a broad overview of our articles by category.
Get a more granular view of our articles by tag.
An easy way to make your brief-writing more appealing? Shun deadweight openers—however, additionally, consequently, accordingly. That technique has worked wonders for the Chief Justice, who Justice Ginsburg once said was the greatest appellate advocate of his generation. Back in his brief-writing days, he showed how a lighter touch—thus, so, but,
Democratic stalwarts Seth Waxman and Lloyd Cutler, along with 156 prominent lawyers, signed a letter attesting to John Roberts’s reputation as a “brilliant writer.” Thanks to Roberts’s recent confirmation, many people now know about the letter. But what is it that makes Roberts’s writing so brilliant? Let’s explore that question
Looking to start a fight between two corporate attorneys? Ask whether an agreement is made between Tom, Dick, and Harry—or among Tom, Dick, and Harry. Many lawyers cling to junior-high grammar rules, which would dictate agreements between two parties and among three or more. Think metaphorically instead: Is a multi-party agreement more like “sand between the toes” or
“Kagan May Be Dangerous,” wrote the Wall Street Journal’s “Best of the Web” early on in her tenure. More politics as usual? Not at all. The popular right-leaning blog meant “dangerous” as a grudging compliment to the left-leaning Justice, who had just issued her first dissent, attacking the majority for
Your seventh-grade English teacher told you never to split an infinitive: no adverb between “to” and a verb. Never mind that the Starship Enterprise sought to boldly go where no man had gone before: You, an ordinary kid, had to obey the laws of grammar and physics alike. No one ever
When I ask my audiences which words or phrases they like to cut from their drafts, someone often mentions the word “that.” Not so fast, I suggest. I plucked the example below from the first pages of an Illinois Court of Appeals opinion on Buffalo Wild Wings and on trailing modifiers in
Lawyers love to quibble about everything. But of all the the potential topics to debate, grammar provides the best fodder for the persnickety legal practitioner. Here are four grammar topics certain to energize your next round of office icebreakers. 1. Should I Use a Serial Comma? Some say we should
Drafting reformers hate couplets. They say, for example, that “terms and conditions” means nothing more than “terms.” But can couplet aversion go too far? Take “indemnify” and “hold harmless.” Double trouble? Or a distinction with a difference? Double Trouble: At least one authority claims that “hold harmless” protects against losses
While a well-placed allusion can enliven your prose, the use of trite, uninspired clichés will detract from your message and distract your reader. Here are five clichés you should avoid like the plague. 1. An Apple a Day Example: “The State prosecuted the astronaut on a more serious charge because
Writing is vital to every part of your legal career. BriefCatch empowers you to stand out above the rest.