1L here and persuasive writing is literally all we do—here's what I've learned

[Georg]

Hey everyone! First-year law student here, surviving on coffee and sheer determination . Before law school, I thought I knew how to write persuasively. I got good grades in undergrad, my professors liked me, whatever. Then I got my first legal memo back with more red ink than black text, and I realized I knew NOTHING.

Here's the brutal truth about persuasive writing in law school (and it applies everywhere):

1. Your opinion means nothing. In undergrad, I could write "I believe X is true" and that was fine. In law school, if you don't have a CASE or a STATUTE to back it up, your "belief" is worthless. Every single claim needs a citation. It taught me that persuasion without evidence is just noise.

2. Structure is literally everything. We use IRAC: Issue, Rule, Application, Conclusion. Every. Single. Paragraph. It's repetitive, it's formulaic, and it WORKS. The reader always knows exactly where you are in your argument. No surprises, no confusion, just relentless clarity.

3. Address the other side BEFORE they can. The best advice my legal writing professor gave me: "If you don't kill the counterargument, the other side will use it to kill you." So now, in every memo, I explicitly say: "Opponents might argue X, but here's why they're wrong because Y." It's SO much more persuasive than pretending the other side doesn't exist.

4. The conclusion should be inevitable. By the time someone finishes reading your argument, they should feel like agreeing with you was their own idea. They should think "well OBVIOUSLY this is the right answer." That's the magic of good persuasive writing—it makes your conclusion feel like common sense.

Question for non-law students: Do your professors encourage you to address counterarguments, or is that more of a law school thing?

 

[LeylaFart]

This is fascinating to me because it's basically the opposite of what we do in engineering. In my world, if a bridge stands up or a circuit works, the data is the argument. We don't really have to "persuade" anyone; the numbers speak for themselves.

But your point about addressing the counterargument is something I actually deal with a lot. In design reviews, if you don't point out the flaw in your own prototype first, you can bet one of your professors or a client will. It’s like pre-emptive problem-solving. I guess I never thought of that as a writing technique, just as survival. Still, having to cite a "case" for every single claim sounds exhausting. I'll stick my equations, thanks. Good luck with the rest of 1L!