Authors

TexasBarToday_TopTen_Badge_Small

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Follow us on Twitter

Disclaimer

  • This blog is for information purposes only. It is not intended to provide legal advice. For client reasons, we might not cover or comment on certain cases.

October 2019

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31    

« Affordable Care Act Arguments -- Day 3, Part 2 | Main | Texas Supreme Court weekly orders (3/30/12) »

Mar 28, 2012

Comments

Emil Kiehne

I wouldn't make my briefs harder to read, even if this study is correct. Appellate and other judges have a lot of reading to do, and making their job harder does not seem like a wise tactic, especially if my brief is the last one the judge is reading at the end of a long day.

Bob Powell

I would advise my opponents to heed Oppenheimer's advice. I personally will strive for the easy read that encourages my reader to join me in exploring the issue for our mutual benefit.

Bob

Stephen R. Diamond

Put in the whole research context, the finding is that a certain level of cognitive disfluency can help rather than hurt. Simpler isn't always better. (http://tinyurl.com/3e9fqcs) But cognitive disfluency can be introduced by means other than illegible typography, and most legal writing, moreover, is already too disfluent.

The comments to this entry are closed.