|
| Making Your Case: The Art of Persuading Judges | 
 enlarge | Authors: Antonin Scalia, Bryan A. Garner
Publisher: Thomson West
Category: Book
List Price: $29.95
Buy New: $27.99
You Save: $1.96 (7%)
New (22) Used (7) Collectible (1) from $27.99
Avg. Customer Rating:  30 reviews
Sales Rank: 3165
Media: Hardcover
Edition: 1
Number Of Items: 1
Pages: 269
Shipping Weight (lbs): 1
Dimensions (in): 8.2 x 5.6 x 1.2
ISBN: 0314184716
Dewey Decimal Number: 347.7375
EAN: 9780314184719
ASIN: 0314184716
Publication Date: April 28, 2008
Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days
|
| Customer Reviews:
 Fatuous May 26, 2008
10 out of 106 found this review helpful
I heard Scalia, a little man who has a bullying personality, interviewed about this book on radio. He lamented the use of contractions which, he felt, diminished the "eloquence" of judicial opinions. If he's not smart enough to know that the impoverishment of opinion expression, not just judicial, is due to the vapid reasoning of our current leaders and their crippled expression, then he's certainly not smart enough to offer suggestions on how to be persuasive. It's clear to anyone familiar with Scalia's dogmatic sensibility that as regards many important matters facing this country, his mind has already been made up. As a loyal member of Opus Dei, he is committed to denying reproductive rights to women and doing everything he can to diminish any vestiges of tolerance and humanity which the legal system should nourish. In public appearances he continues to be glib and insulting, inviting not arguments that might persuade him but similarly clever one-liners that are the standard of his sophistry.
 If you need to persuade a judge, you need this book June 2, 2008
8 out of 8 found this review helpful
Whether or not you agree with Justice Scalia's opinions from the Supreme Court, this book as a primer on briefs and oral argument is excellent. I wish that I had this book for moot court. The brief writing section was far better than any of the books I had to help me. The oral presentation section identified solutions to problems that frustrated me. If you are not a lawyer you will likely find the oral argument section interesting and helpful, but find the minutia of the brief writing section boring. As a lawyer, I will reread this book from time to time.
Justice Scalia recognizes there are other viewpoints; he discusses them but then explains why his view is better.
The book presents all viewpoints and follows with their own and why theirs is better. For example, the book points out that although they believes underlining is a crude throwback to the typewriter , Bluebook approves the use of underlining. The book states that underlining is unnecessary in the 21st century with a word processor. They follow with suggesting that Bluebook should be revised. The book suggests using italics where you would have used underlining. They add that very limited use of italics is far better than liberal use. Justice Scalia's differences of opinions extend to his coauthor.
Bryan Garner, author of Garner's Modern American Usage, The Elements of Legal Style and editor in chief of Black's Law Dictionary did not agree with Justice Scalia on all points. Some section headings state a definite rule, followed by "or not." For example: "Consider using contractions occasionally--or not." These sections take the form of majority opinion vs. minority opinion. Mr. Garner's opinion is presented, Justice Scalia follows with his opinion and his analysis on why Mr. Garner was wrong and why Justice Scalia is right.
The book is organized logically, and with brevity.
The book in its 245 pages discusses:
* the general purposes of oral argument,
* legal reasoning, brief writing, and finally
* the crafting of the oral argument itself.
It discusses these topics more thoroughly than some books that are three times its size. Subsections have a clear heading and to the point discussion. Most subsections, although fully treated, are one to two pages long, some less than a page.
Finally
The book shows how to tailor your arguments for a singular audience, the judge, distinguished even from arguing before a jury. It gives tactics to use with difficult judges, lazy judges, and their law clerks. It gives the view from the bench when the lawyer reacts to bad questions from the judge. It describes the likely outcomes, and it offers way to avoid confrontation, while still making your argument. It is a good book.
 interesting but mostly useless July 23, 2008
7 out of 8 found this review helpful
As a plaintiff's lawyer who also does appeal work, this book was very interesting but little is memorable after a few days. I'm glad I signed it out from the library instead of buying it. It's just a repeat of basic (naive) advocacy principles. The image is that your judge will really conscientiuosly read things and be careful to rule properly. The book is very well-edited--so you won't read much of substance that is realistic or cynical--like about judicial intellectual dishonesty. Scalia gives no insight on how to get an honest opinion from an appellate court--how to keep appeals judges from ignoring things in the record (or making up things) just so they can come up with a very good-appearing opinion that is wrong because it has result-oriented oddities that only the parties' lawyers know about. Summary judgment (and more recently dismissal for failure to state a claim) have become procedural easy-outs that have created widespread dishonesty by judges who want to get rid of cases (usually because they are infatuated with defense counsel). Often defense counsel succeed only because they loudly and assertively repeat their propaganda--and judges (or their staff) go right along (letting perception become reality). Also, de novo judicial review is in reality deferential to the trial judge (with unwillingness to reverse--finding any way possible (dishonest) to affirm).
There were some very good points--like not being lured into making concessions during oral argument. There might be one detail that prevents the judges from (honestly) ruling a certain way--so you could get a question that so temptingly and nicely tries to get you to agree with an innocuous point, etc. There is a great example of how the judges will write about such a concession in their opinion. Another good point is Scalia's belief that whatever doesn't help your case hurts it (i.e., don't fill your briefs, etc. with unhelpful things).
There could have been some mention of realities like that most judges and staff never in their lives had to prosecute a civil case (or never had a burden-of-proof in their lives) or never had to deal with defense counsel in a contentious manner (e.g., trying to get discovery through a motion to compel)--and how to work with that in the justice system (those judges and staff).
I also didn't like Justice Scalia's pompous "dissents" on some points by Bryan Garner. They stand out in hindsight as ugly parts. It appears that Bryan Garner did the heavy lifting in writing the book.
A joy to read May 21, 2008
6 out of 7 found this review helpful
This book is a fantastic product by America's wittiest Justice and one of the foremost legal writers today (Bryan was entrusted with revising the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure).
It is really a product that means different things to two different audiences. First, it serves as an exemplary checklist for the legal advocate. No matter what forum an attorney appears in - your local town adminstrative agency all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, this functions as a comprehensive checklist of things that we were taught in law school - and promptly forgot.
For the lay person, it offers more than just a highly entertaining read. First it demystifies the judicial process for a public whose perceptions of the justice system have been unfortunately based on half-baked Hollywood products, from L.A. Law to Ally McBeal.
But in the classical sense, it is also a treatise on decision making, rhetoric, and the balancing we all perform as humans. In this, it follows, perhaps consciously, the great classics to which it repeatedly alludes.
A great read.
An insightful and delightful book for anyone with an interest in people and persuasion June 8, 2008
5 out of 6 found this review helpful
My only exposure to the courts has been the unfortunate experience of defending various complaints from my ex that continue to be served even to this day, 10 years after the divorce. So I'm no attorney and most of the time I've been in a courtroom, I'd gladly have been somewhere else. But still, when I'm not feeling trapped in the details of my personal situation, I've found the workings of the court and how motions and trials are decided to be quite fascinating. I'm an engineer, but I think the (sometimes) logical world of law might have been fun. The significance of some of Scalia's book, e.g., the minutiae of whether to use contractions, was probably lost on me. But I bought it based on some enticing interview snippets in the WSJ Law Blog and I was definitely not disappointed.
I enjoyed the insight it offered into just how the whole thing works and found myself agreeing, on a number of occasions involving, surely, the more obvious points, that I'd noticed precisely that same thing myself but hadn't been sure to what degree it might be generalized. It explained things. I found lots of good advice that I'm sure will be portable to the far more ordinary life I lead having nothing to do with the law but a lot to do with getting along with people around me and, on occasion, trying to persuade them to my point of view.
I also had a great time. The book was waiting for me Friday evening when I got home from work and by Saturday evening, I'd finished it completely. Along the way, I learned a lot and I also laughed a lot, out loud, probably every 4 or 5 minutes, at some new, insightful and humorously phrased observation about life or the law.
|
|
|
Powered by Associate-O-Matic
| |
