LawProse Lesson 351: The Power of Quantified Enumerations

LawProse Lesson 351: The Power of Quantified Enumerations

It’s surprising how often advocates say a court should do something and then fail to adequately orient their readers to their arguments. Three pitfalls pervade modern advocacy.

The most serious is just launching into a discussion. “Jenkins erroneously relies on McCallister v. Blaine.” Talk, talk, talk. No signposts. Readers feel as if they’re drifting at sea. No rudder even.

A second deficiency—barely a notch up the ladder from the bottom rung of unskillfulness—is inadequate signposting. “The court should deny Jenkins’s motion,” followed by “First, Jenkins is wrong about the holding in McCallister v. Blaine.” The advocate then lists several other arguments over the course of several pages, with paragraphs beginning “Second,” “Third,” “Fourth,” and sometimes “Finally.” We’re given no preview of how many reasons there might be—perhaps because the advocate didn’t even know when embarking on the voyage.

An equally common but less incompetent failing is to say, “Jenkins is wrong in relying on McCallister v. Blaine for several reasons.” That’s a weak signpost. Many readers then start counting the reasons because the writer has failed to do it for them. There might be three or four. But sometimes, by the time you reach “For the foregoing reasons,” you realize that there was only one. Perhaps the writer suspected that there might be several reasons but lost sight of the need to quantify.

What is wanted is some smart guidance that keeps readers constantly (if only subliminally) aware of how the argument is progressing. “In ruling on this motion, this Court is presented with three issues—any one of which is dispositive in Burton’s favor.” Then “First, . . .” It’s a simple but powerful format. Remember it and use it.

POSTSCRIPT: Surely you didn’t think you caught an error in the first sentence: a split infinitive with to adequately orient? We give you more credit than to think you’d mindlessly condemn all split infinitives. You surely know your 1926 Fowler, who on page 559 ridiculed “non-split diehards” who stupidly condemn to legally organize public worshipto publicly assume the stance of a martyrto powerfully move the heart toward charity, and to effectively prevent cosmopolitan financiers from manipulating reserves. If that’s giving too much credit, may we suggest that you invest in Garner’s Modern English Usage (4th ed. 2016), which has a witty and authoritative three-page discussion of the issue?

Live seminars this year with Professor Bryan A. Garner: Advanced Legal Writing & Editing

Attend the most popular CLE seminar of all time. More than 215,000 people—including lawyers, judges, law clerks, and paralegals—have benefited since the early 1990s. You'll learn the keys to professional writing and acquire no-nonsense techniques to make your letters, memos, and briefs more powerful.

You'll also learn what doesn't work and why—know-how gathered through Professor Garner's unique experience in training lawyers at the country's top law firms, state and federal courts, government agencies, and Fortune 500 companies.

Professor Garner gives you the keys to make the most of your writing aptitude—in letters, memos, briefs, and more. The seminar covers five essential skills for persuasive writing:

  • framing issues that arrest the readers' attention;
  • cutting wordiness that wastes readers' time;
  • using transitions deftly to make your argument flow;
  • quoting authority more effectively; and
  • tackling your writing projects more efficiently.

He teaches dozens of techniques that make a big difference. Most important, he shows you what doesn't work—and why—and how to cultivate skillfulness.

Register to reserve your spot today.

Have you wanted to bring Professor Garner to teach your group? Contact us at for more information about in-house seminars.

Scroll to Top