Jessica
Horne, Law Clerk to the Honorable Elaine Kaplan of the United States Court of Federal Claims and Former Peer Writing Consultant |
During my late nights writing political science or philosophy papers as
a Bucknell student, I discovered that writing, at least for me, involves more
than simply communicating ideas. I never fully understand an idea until I
translate it into words, sentences, and paragraphs. Finding a transition from
one paragraph to another requires me to contemplate the nuanced relationship
between the ideas in each paragraph. I also realized that the communicating
function of writing and the understanding function of writing reinforce one
another: the better I communicate an idea—the more accurate the vocabulary I
use to describe it and the more concisely I explain it—the better I understand
it, and vice versa.
While discovering all of this in college was an important lesson for me,
nowhere has the function of writing as both communicating and understanding
become more clear than in my current job as a law clerk for a federal judge. In
this position, my primary duty is to assist the judge in deciding each of her
assigned cases—that is, clarifying the facts of the case; determining whether,
under those facts, the law entitles the plaintiff to a remedy; and, if so,
gauging the appropriate remedy. My method of tackling this demanding job
involves researching the law and studying the reasoning of other judges in
similar cases, but writing the first draft of the opinion in the case accomplishes
the bulk of the work. The particular logic of a decision takes shape only when
the process of writing forces me to consider how to organize the opinion into
sections and paragraphs and what grammatical structure to use when expressing a
complex idea in a sentence.
Complicating this process, when I write a draft of an opinion, the ideas
that I am communicating are not necessarily my own. Although the judge and I
usually agree on the correct outcome in a case, each of us follows a unique
path in arriving at that outcome, and the written opinion must reflect the
judge’s approach to the issues. When I struggle to write a certain section in
the draft, often that struggle signals that I have not completely understood
the judge’s approach. Occasionally, however, difficulty writing the opinion has
signaled that the conclusion we initially had in mind is the wrong one. Thus,
writing the opinion becomes the ultimate test of the soundness of the decision.
After I finish my draft of the opinion, the judge rewrites it almost
entirely. At the beginning of my clerkship, I worried that the quality of my
writing must not meet the judge’s expectations. I now realize, however, that,
for the judge too, writing is the process by which she thinks through and fully
understands the issues in a case. This
experience as a law clerk has shown me that all writers, from college students
to federal judges, labor through the process of distilling relatively crude
ideas into thoughtful and precise prose.
Such a profound perspective on the writing process! Just like crafting a narrative in Xenia Canary, articulating legal opinions is crucial for clarity and impact.
ReplyDelete