As an advocate, your job is to convince
the court that your position is the better one, and you do that through your
legal analysis. You can’t just cite
statutes and cases and expect the judge to make the connection between the
authority cited and the facts of your case.
Too many analyses look something like this:
That’s not an adequate analysis—in fact,
it's not an analysis at all. Your
analysis should consist of more than a conclusory summary of the facts or
a blanket statement that the cases offered apply and support your position. The analysis should answer the question: Why
should your client prevail in light of the facts and law? Some questions you should ask yourself to guide
your analysis:
-Why is a statute/regulation/ordinance
applicable or inapplicable?
-How are favorable cases factually
similar?-Does a comparison between recent cases and older cases suggest a trend that supports your position?
-How are unfavorable cases factually distinguishable?
-Was an unfavorable case decided under a different statute with different language?
-Was an unfavorable case decided under common law principles but a statute now applies?
-Are there policy arguments that support my position/disfavor my opponent’s position?
In the example above, this would mean
answering how Lukumi and the other
cases cited are factually similar, explaining why Lukumi, as opposed to any “bad” case, applies, and outlining the reasons public
policy, equitable principles, or—even—common sense supports your argument that
the ordinance is an improper restriction of religion.
While you probably will have to devote
the majority of your brief to outlining the factual background and controlling
authority, a good rule of thumb is to save at least 15-20% of your brief
space for your analysis. For example, in a 20
page brief, at least 3-5 pages should be set aside to analyze the facts of the
case in light of the cited authority.
Any less, and your analysis is likely inadequate.
I’ve seen a number of motions for
summary judgment denied because the litigant failed to perform an adequate
analysis. In many of those cases, the
judge wasn’t convinced the litigant couldn’t prove entitlement to summary
judgment—the litigant just hadn’t. It’s
not the court’s job to do your analysis for you. You will strengthen your writing
substantially and increase the chance of a positive outcome by providing a thorough,
convincing analysis.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.