THE FEDERAL JUDICIAL CENTER
Board

The Chief Justice of the United States
Chairman
Judge J. Clifford Wallace
United States Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit

Judge David D. Dowd, Jr.
United States District Court
Northern District of Ohio

Judge Monroe G. McKay
United States Court of Appeals
for the Tenth Circuit

Judge Diana E. Murphy
United States District Court
District of Minnesota

Chief Judge William C. O'Kelley
United States District Court
Northern District of Georgia

Judge Robert E. Ginsberg
United States Bankruptcy Court
Northern District of Illinois

L. Ralph Mecham
Director of the Administrative Office
of the United States Courts
Director

Judge William W Schwarzer
Deputy Director

Charles W. Nihan
Division Directors

William B. Eldridge
Research

Sylvan A. Sobel
Publications

Daniel L. Skoler
Continuing Education &
Training

[Vacant]
Innovations & Systems
Development

Russell R. Wheeler
Special Educational Services

Judicial
Writing
Manual

Board of Editors for the Judicial Writing Manual
Alvin B. Rubin, Chair
U.S. Circuit Judge
Patricia M. Wald
Chief U.S. Circuit Judge
Wilfred Feinberg
U.S. Circuit Judge
John C. Godbold
U.S. Circuit Judge
Director Emeritus, Federal Judicial Center
J ames Dickson Phillips, Jr.
U.S. Circuit Judge
J. Clifford Wallace
U.S. Circuit Judge
Louis H. Pollak
U.S. District Judge

A. Leo Levin
Professor, University of Pennsylvania
Director Emeritus, Federal Judicial Center
Paul J. Mishkin
Professor, University of California, Berkeley
StephenJ. Wermiel
The Wall Street}ournal
William W Schwarzer
U.S. District Judge
Director, Federal Judicial Center

Sylvan A. Sobel, Editor
Director, Publications Division
Federal Judicial Centf'T

Judicial Writing Manual
Federal Judicial Center

1991

This Judicial Writing Manual has been produced under the auspices of the Federal
Judicial Center. The analyses and recommendations are those of the manual's board
of editors. On matters of policy, the Center speaks only through its statutorily,
created Board.

fourth printing

Contents
Foreword .................................................................................. vii
Acknowledgments ........................................................................ ix
Introduction ....................................................................................................... 1
Determining the Scope of the Opinion ............................................................. 3
Factors to consider ........................................................................................ 4
Preparing to Write .. ........................................................................................... 9
Outlines ......................................................................................................... 10
Using law clerks ............................................................................................ 10
Materials to review............................. ..... ...... ... .................... .......... ............... 11
Organizing and Writing the Opinion ................................................................ 13
Structure ........................................................................................................ 13
Introduction .................................................................................................. 13
Statement of issues ........................................................................................ 14
Facts ............................................................................................................. 15
Discussion of legal principles ........................................................................ 16
Concluding paragraph ................................................................................... 19
Summary disposition ..................................................................................... 19
Issuing opinions orally from the bench ......................................................... 20
Language, Style, and Self-Editing ....................................................................... 21
Characteristics of bad writing ....... ............................ ..... .............. ............. .... 21
Guides for good writing ................................................................................. 22
Footnotes and citations ................................................................................. 24
Edit carefully ................................................................................................. 24
Dissents, Concurrences, and Writing with Other Judges .................................. 27
Joint opinion writing .................................................................................... 27
Commenting on a draft prepared by another judge ...................................... 28
Dissenting opinions ....................................................................................... 29
Concurrences ................................................................................................ 30
Reading About Writing ..................................................................................... 31
Books .............................................................................................................. 32
Articles ..................................................................................................... ,.... 32
. Other ............................................................................................................. 32
Appendix A: Sample Memorandum Opinion .................................................... 33
Appendix B: Sample Summary Order ................................................................ 35
Appendix C: Sample Standards of Review ......................................................... 36
Appendix D: Sample Concluding Paragraphs .................................................... 38
Appendix E: Sample Brief Dissenting Opinions ................................................. 39
Appendix F: Sample Brief Concurring Opinions ............................................... 41

v

Foreword
The link between courts and the public is the written word. With rare exceptions,
it is through judicial opinions that courts communicate with litigants, lawyers,
other courts, and the community. Whatever the court's statutory and constitutional
status, the written word, in the end, is the source and the measure of the court's
authority.
It is therefore not enough that a decision be correct - it must also be fair and
reasonable and readily understood. The burden of the judicial opinion is to explain
and to persuade and to satisfy the world that the decision is principled and sound.
What the court says, and how it says it, is as important as what the court decides.
It is important to the reader. But it is also important to the author because in the
writing lies the test of the thinking that underlies it. "Good writing," Ambrose
Bierce said, "essentially is clear thinking made visible." A. Bierce, Write It Right
6 (rev. ed. 1986).
To serve the cause of good opinion writing, the Federal Judicial Center has
prepared this manual. It is not held out as an authoritative pronouncement on good
writing, a subject on which the literature abounds. Rather it distills the experience
and reflects the views of a group of experienced judges, vetted by a distinguished
board of editors. No one of them would approach the task of writing an opinion, or
describe the process, precisely as any of the others would. Yet, though this is a highly
personal endeavor, some generally accepted principles of good opinion writing
emerge and they are the subject of this manual.
We hope that judges and their law clerks will find this manual helpful and that
it will advance the cause for which it has been prepared.

G~tJ~
William W Schwarzer

vii

Acknowledgments
The Center and the board of editors are grateful to the following judges who
participated in telephone interviews to discuss their experience with and views on
judicial writing. Their thoughtful responses contributed substantially to this
manual.
Stephen Breyer, Chief US. Circuit Judge
Gerald B. Tjoflat, Chief U.S. Circuit Judge
Patricia M. Wald, Chief US. Circuit Judge
Ruggero J. Aldisert, US. Circuit Judge
Richard S. Arnold, US. Circuit Judge
Frank M. Coffin, U.S. Circuit Judge
Wilfred Feinberg, US. Circuit Judge
John J. Gibbons, US. Circuit Judge, ret.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg, US. Circuit Judge
Frank M. Johnson, Jr., US. Circuit Judge
James K. Logan, US. Circuit Judge
Monroe G. McKay, US. Circuit Judge
James Dickson Phillips, Jr., US. Circuit Judge
Richard A. Posner, US. Circuit Judge
Joseph T. Sneed, US. Circuit Judge
J. Clifford Wallace, US. Circuit Judge
John Minor Wisdom, US. Circuit Judge
Robert E. Keeton, U.S. District Judge
Prentice H. Marshall, US. District Judge
Louis H. Pollak, US. District Judge
William W Schwarzer, US. District Judge
Jack B. Weinstein, US. District Judge
Lloyd King, Chief US. Bankruptcy Judge
Robert E. Ginsberg, US. Bankruptcy Judge
Weare also grateful to Carol Krafka of the Research Division staff, who conducted
the interviews and edited the transcripts prepared by members of the Center's
Research and General Administration staff, and to David Marshall and Scott
Filderman for their thorough editing.

ix

-------------

Introduction
Judicial opinions serve three functions. First, written opinions commu~
nicate a court's conclusions and the reasons for them to the parties and their
lawyers. Second, when published, opinions announce the law to other
lawyers, judges, academics, and the interested public. Finally, the prepara~
tion of a written opinion imposes intellectual discipline on the author,
requiring the judge to clarify his or her reasoning and assess the sufficiency
of precedential support.
The opinion should fairly, clearly, and accurately state the significant
facts and relevant rules of law and demonstrate by its analysis the reason~
ableness of its conclusions. Misstating significant facts or authorities is a
mark of carelessness or worse and undermines the opinion's authority and
integrity. Unclear or ambiguous writing reflects the author's lack of clear
thinking and defeats the opinion's purpose.
This manual is intended to encourage judges and law clerks to think
critically about their writing - not only about what to include and what to
exclude but also about how to write well. We expect that newly appointed
judges and law clerks will be the principal users of this manual. It therefore
takes a functional approach to opinion writing, describing the consider~
ations that arise at each stage of the writing and editing process; recom~
mending organizational, structural, and stylistic techniques; and
explaining the reasons for its recommendations. In keeping with the
principle that there is no single right way to write an opinion, the manual
explores alternatives and the considerations for choosing among them.
This manual should also help experienced judges take a fresh look at
their approaches to writing and their styles. Professor Robert Leflar has
written:
Pride of authorship is by no means an unmitigated evil. ... [T]his pride can
drive a man to hard work and with meticulous effort. The poorest opinions
are apt to be written by judges who take no pride in them, who regard the
preparation of them as mere chores. Pride in work well done is a proper

incident of good craftsmanship in any field of work, including law. An
opinion in which the author takes no pride is not likely to be much good.

Leflar, Some Observations Conceming]udicial Opinions, 61 Colum. L. Rev.
810, 813 (1961). The pride judges take in their written work should
encourage self-evaluation.
This manual is not intended to proclaim the right way of writing an
opinion. Anyone undertaking to announce authoritative rules of good
writing invites debate and comparison. As one judge said: "I have one
overarching rule. That is, don't have any such rules." Indeed, in a leading
text on g90d writing, E. B. White acknowledged that "[sltyle rules of this
sort are, of course, somewhat a matter of individual preference, and even the
established rules of grammar are open to challenge." W. Strunk & E. B.
White, The Elements of Style xv (3d ed. 1979).
Instead, the purpose of the manual is to stimulate judges (whether they
agree or disagree with what is said here - and there is room for disagreement) to think as systematically about writing their opinions as they do
about deciding their cases. Judges should ask themselves: Am I writing this
way because this is how I've always done it, or is there a better way? Is there
a reason for organizing the opinion this way? For including these particular
facts? For discussing this issue at length? For citing this case? Is this sentence
clear? Are all the words in it necessary?
In the following chapters, the manual takes the reader through the
opinion-writing process. Chapter 2 suggests some considerations to guide
judges in deciding whether to write a "full-dress" opinion, a memorandum,
or an unpublished opinion, and when to write briefly and when not.
Chapter 3 discusses steps a judge should take before starting to write,
including preparing an outline and how to use law clerks. Chapter 4
discusses the organization, structure, and content of an opinion. Chapter 5
offers suggestions on language, style, and editing for brevity. Chapter 6
presents considerations relevant to co-writing an opinion and commenting
on the opinions of other members of the court and to dissenting and
concurring opinions. Chapter 7 contains a bibliography of books and
articles that may be useful to those who wish to read more about judicial
writing. Appendices provide examples of some of the points discussed in the
manual.

2

Determining the Scope
of the Opinion
A judicial opinion informs parties of the outcome of their case and
articulates the legal principles on which the opinion is based in order to
guide the bench, the bar, academia, and the public. Because written
decisions serve both case-deciding and law -making functions, they range in
form from one-sentence, unpublished summary orders to formally structured, citation-laden full-dress opinions. An opinion that is intended only
to inform the parties of the outcome of their dispute should not be as
elaborate as one intended to serve as precedent. Before beginning to write,
judges should decide what purpose the opinion will serve and how to write
it to suit that purpose.
This manual will refer to three types of written decisions: full-dress
opinions, memorandum opinions, and summary orders.
Full-dress opinions are those that require structured discussion of the
facts, legal principles, and governing authorities. The significance or
number of the issues presented, the novelty of the question, and the
complexity of the facts are among the factors that determine whether an
opinion requires full-dress treatment.
Memorandum opinions are appropriate where the decision does not
require a comprehensive, structured explanation but still needs some
explanation of the rationale. They are generally brief and informal and may
or may not be published. Per curiam opinions are generally included in this
category. Appendix A contains an example of a memorandum opinion.
Summary orders simply state the disposition of the case, sometimes with
a brief statement of findings and conclusions, but often with little or no
explanation. Summary orders are usually unpublished. Appendix B contains an example of a summary order.
The following sections discuss some of the factors a judge should
consider in determining what kind of opinion to write.

3

Factors to consider
Three factors influence the scope and style of an opinion: the complexity of the facts and nature of the issues, the intended audience, and whether
the opinion will be published. Although the manual treats these factors
separately, they are interrelated.

Facts and issues
The complexity of the facts and the nature of the legal issues are the
principal factors determining the kind of opinion required. If the precedents
are clear and the material facts are not complicated, the scope of the opinion
will be limited. As the controlling law becomes more uncertain or the
material facts more complex, the need for exposition and analysis to explain
the reasons for the court's decision increases. Some cases that present
complex fact patterns may require lengthy discussion of the facts even
though the applicable law may be simple. Others raising novel legal issues
may require extended analysis of law and policy.
The scope of an opinion will be influenced by how well developed the
law is in the area. Judges should consider whether the issue has previously
been decided authoritatively and whether another opinion would aid in the
development or explanation of the law. They should ask whether their
opinion would say something that has not been said before. If the subject
matter has been thoroughly aired in prior opinions, this one need not trace
the origins of the rule and elaborate on its interpretation. In some cases, it
is sufficient to affirm for the reasons stated by the court below. If the decision
merely closes a gap in existing law, little more is needed than an explanation
of the applicable principles and the reasons for the court's choice among
them. Where such a decision contributes to the development of the law, a
brief, published per curiam or memorandum opinion is appropriate. Summary orders may be sufficient where clear existing law is simply being
applied to facts that are undisputed or that are made indisputable on appeal
because, for example, they are jury findings supported by substantial
evidence.
When, however, an opinion enters less developed areas of the law,
laying down a new rule or modifying an old one, the writer must think not
only about the rationale of the decision but also about the impact it will
have as precedent. The writer should discuss and analyze the precedents in
the area, the new direction the law is taking, and the effect of the decision

4

on existing law. Even if it appears that the litigants do not need a detailed
statement of the facts, the opinion should present sufficient facts to define
for other readers the precedent it creates and to delineate its boundaries.
The relevant body of precedent - and the relevant policies - should be
analyzed in sufficient detail to establish the rationale for the holding. A
decision" ... can be accepted as completely just and fair only if the reasoning
that supports it has been adequate, and the main relevant considerations
have in fact been impartially weighed in the balance." S. Hampshire,
Innocence and Experience 53 (1989).

Audience
Because opllllons decide cases, they are written primarily for the
litigants and their lawyers-and for the lower courts or agencies whose
decisions they review. To the extent an opinion is addressed to the parties,
it should provide them with a fair and accurate statement of what was before
the court for decision, what the court decided, and what the reasons for the
decision were. This can generally be accomplished without writing a fulldress opinion. The parties will be familiar with the facts and will generally
not be interested in an extensive exploration of the law, other than what
is needed to give the losing party a clear explanation for the result.
The writer must also ask whether the opinion has something to say to
others besides the parties. Opinions intended to inform other audiences
may require additional factual development and legal analysis. How much
analysis is required, and how detailed it must be, depends on the subject
matter and the probable audience. Judges may assume a certain level of
sophistication and familiarity with the law on the part oflawyers. But if the
case involves an arcane area of law familiar primarily ro specialists - tax,
labor, or antitrust law, for example - more discussion of the factual and
legal background will be needed and care should be taken to avoid the use
of technical language and to define technical terms to aid comprehension
by the uninitiated.
An opinion remanding a case must tell the lower court what is expected
on remand (see p. 19). An opinion setting guidelines for trial courts to follow
must state the factual basis, legal rationale, and policy foundation of the
guidelines sufficiently to enable trial judges to apply them correctly.
The judge needs to consider whether a statement of facts and legal
analysis adequate to explain the decision to the parties will suffice also for

5

a higher court to understand the basis for the decision. When the decision
turns on complex facts, a more'elaborate explanation than is necessary for
the parties may be helpful to the appellate court. And when the decision
involves novel issues or a developing area of law, it is appropriate to trace
the prior development of the law and develop the legal and policy rationale
at some length. Opinions should not, however, be turned into briefs or
become a vehicle for advocacy.
Members of the general public will rarely read opinions. But reporters
from the media will communicate what they believe to be the substance of
an opinion that strikes them as being of public interest. When an opinion
addresses an issue of general public interest or is likely to attract media
attention, it should be written so as to ensure that it will be understood and not misunderstood. The mark of a well-written opinion in any event is
that it is comprehensible to an intelligent lay person.

Publication
All courts of appeals have adopted rules, internal operating procedures,
or other policies concerning publication and non-publication of opinions.
See generally Stienstra, Unpublished Dispositions: Problems of Access and Use
in the Courts of Appeals (FederalJudicial Center 1985). Some of the procedures specify criteria for determining whether or not an opinion should be
published. For example, D.C. Circuit Rule 14(b) directs:
An opinion, memorandum, or other statement explaining the basis for
this Court's action in issuing an order or judgment shall be published if it
meets one or more of the following criteria:
<1) with regard to a substantial issue it resolves, it is a case of first
impression or the first case to present the issue in this Court;
(2) it alters, modifies, or significantly clarifies a rule of law previously
announced by the Court;
(3) it calls attention to an existing rule of law that appears to have been
generally overlooked;
(4) it criticizes or questions existing law;
(5) it resolves an apparent conflict in decisions within the circuit or
creates a conflict with another circuit;
(6) it reverses a published agency or district court decision, or affirms a
decision of the district court upon grounds different from those set forth
in the district court's published opinion; or
(7) it warrants publication in light of other factors that give it general
public interest.

6

Similar criteria are included in 1st Cir. R. 36.2(a); 4th Cir. I.o.P. 36.3; 5th
Cir. R. 47.5.1; 6th Cir. R. 24(a); 7th Cir. R. 53(c)(1); 8th Cir. Plan for
Publication of Opinions 9f 4; and 9th Cir. R. 36-2.
Other circuits have more general guidelines, giving judges latitude to
decide whether to publish. The standard in the Third Circuit, for example,
is that "[a]n opinion is published when it has precedential or institutional
value." 3d Cir. I.o.P. chap. 5.5.1. See also 11th Cir. R. 36-1, I.o.P. 3
("Opinions that the panel believes to have no precedential value are not
published"); Fed. Cir. R. 47.8(c) ("Unpublished opinions ... are those
unanimously determined by the panel as not adding significantly or usefully
to the body oflaw and not having precedential value"). The Second Circuit
permits disposition "in open court or by summary order" of "cases in which
decision is unanimous and each judge of the panel believes that no
jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion .... " 2d Cir.
R. 0.23. Otherwise, written opinions, including per curiam opinions, are
published. See also 10th Cir. R. 36.1 (permitting disposition without opinion
where "the case involves application of no new points of law that would
make the decision of value as a precedent").
In the district courts, the decision to publish in the West Reporter
System is entirely in the judge's discretion. Because decisions of district
judges are merely persuasive authority-i.e., they are not binding precedent even in their own districts-publication should be the exception. In
addition, time constraints argue against writing formal opinions unless the
decision involves a novel or complex issue or a matter of public importance
and thus may be useful to attorneys and judges or be of interest to the public.
Other reporters than West will sometimes print copies of "unpublished"
opinions. The court has no control over this.
Because unpublished decisions are written primarily for the parties, they
will require little or no elaboration of the facts and law. Often they will take
the form of summary orders or memorandum opinions. The determination
as to whether a disposition should be published or unpublished should be
made as soon as possible, so that the judge who writes the opinion will not
spend an undue amount of time on it if publication is not warranted.

7

-------------

Preparing to Write
Before beginning to write, judges should think through what they want
their opinion to say and how they want to say it. They should consider the
scope of the opinion, the prospective audience, and whether the opinion
will be published. They should marshal the material facts, formulate the
issues, identify the applicable rules of law, and determine the appropriate
form of judicial relief. In short, they must break the case down into its
components.
Professor Richard Wasserstrom characterizes the procedure by which a
conclusion is reached as the "process of discovery" and the procedure by
which a conclusion is justified as the "process of justification." R. A.
Wasserstrom, The Judicial Decision: Toward a Theory of Legal Justification
27 (1961). The judicial writer must remember to separate these phases of
decision making. A judge should have completed the process of discovery
and reached a conclusion - if only a tentative one - before beginning to
write. Setting down the reasons in writing then constitutes the process of
justification.
This does not mean that judges will not change their minds after they
have started ro write. Sometimes judges may decide in advance where they
want to go, but in the process of writing discover that they cannot get there.
Justice Roger Traynor wrote that he
found [no] better test for the solution of a case than its articulation in
writing, which is thinking at its hardest. A judge, inevitably preoccupied
with the far-reaching effect of an immediate solution as a precedent, often
discovers that his tentative views will not jell in the writing. He wrestles
with the devil more than once to set forth a sound opinion that will be
sufficient unto more than the day.
Traynor, Some Open Questions on the Work of State Appellate Courts, 24 U.
Chi. L. Rev. 211, 218 (1957). Nevertheless, the writing should reflect only
the final decision and the reasons for it. Where the decision is a close one,
the opinion should say so, but it should not record every step and misstep
the writer took along the way.
9

The following sections discuss some of the techniques judges use to
organize their thoughts and to prepare before starting to write.

Outlines
Outlines help to organize one's thinking. They may take a variety of
forms: a formal, written outline prepared by the judge or law clerk; a rough
sketch of important facts, issues, and points to discuss that the judge
enlarges in the course of writing; a bench memorandum prepared by a law
clerk in advance of oral argument, which the judge has marked up after the
argument and conference; a brief checklist; or perhaps only a mental
framework. Whatever the form, the point is that judges, like all other good
writers, must organize their thoughts before starting to write.
A good time to prepare an outline is shortly after the conference at
which the case is discussed and the opinion assigned, when the writer's own
ideas and those of the other judges are fresh in mind. In addition to
organizing the writer's thinking, the outline serves as an informal record of
the discussion at the conference.

U sing law clerks
Law clerks can provide substantial assistance to the judge faced with
writing an opinion. Especially in a time of burgeoning dockets, their help
is crucial. Discussions with law clerks are helpful in planning the opinion
and developing the outline. The opportunity to test one's thoughts in
vigorous exchanges with the clerks is invaluable. This will continue to be
a useful exercise throughout the writing process as the judge and the law
clerks discuss and criticize the opinion as it develops, ferreting out error and
ambiguity, striving for precision, and polishing the final product.
In the writing process itself, judges use their law clerks in different ways.
Some limit the clerks to performing research, preparing bench memos, and
editing, cite-checking, and commenting on the judge's drafts. Some assign
the writing of the first draft to a law clerk in routine cases only; others have
clerks write drafts in even the most complex cases, having found that
working from a draft, even a rough draft, makes the task of writing the
opinion easier. A clerk assigned to write the first draft should use an outline
developed by or with the judge, and should understand the scope, organization, and probable outcome of the opinion. Many judges, having found
that it takes more time to work with a clerk's draft, write their own draft,

10

then polish it into the final product. Some judges invite the law clerk to
rewrite the judge's first draft before the judge returns to it for preparation of
the final version.
The process the judge uses depends on his or her own work habits and
style and on the capabilities of the particular law clerk. The judge must
always remember, however, that the law clerk usually is fresh out of law
school, with little practical experience. Even a distinguished academic
record does not qualify a law clerk to practice the craft of judging, to draw
the fine line between reversible and harmless error, to make the sometimes
delicate assessment of the effect of precedent, and to recognize subtle
distinctions in the applicable law. It is the unusual law clerk who has
perfected a writing style that makes for a satisfactory opinion. Law clerks'
fact statements, analysis, and conclusions may require major revisions.
Judges should not simply be editors - no matter how capable the clerk, the
opinion must always be the judge's work.

Materials to review
Little need be said on this subject. The judge will, of course, have the
briefs of the parties and the law clerk's bench memorandum. The full record
is not always readily available. When an opinion turns on the specifics of
testimony or on what occurred in the court room, there may be no substitute
for reading the relevant portions of the transcript; rarely will excerpts or
summaries in briefs convey the significance of these events fairly and fully.
If an exhibit is crucial, it should be examined. Reference to the record may
also be necessary to determine the precise procedural course by which the
appeal has reached the court and the relevant proceedings below. The judge
will therefore want to arrange for access to the record while preparing the
opinion.
Some appellate courts tape-record the oral argument. Listening to the
tape recording before beginning to draft an opinion can help refresh one's
memory of the significant issues and the arguments made.

11

Organizing and Writing
the Opinion
A judicial opinion should identify the issues presented, set out the
relevant facts, and apply the governing law to produce a clear, wellreasoned decision on the issues that must be resolved to decide the case. The
guidelines that follow are intended to help judges write opinions that will
meet those tests.

Structure
A full-dress opinion should contain five elements: (1) an introductory
statement of the nature and procedural posture of the case; (2) a statement
of the issues to be decided; (3) a description of the material facts; (4) a
discussion of the governing legal principles and the resolution of the issues;
and (5) the disposition and necessary instructions. The organization and
style of opinions will, of course, vary from case to case, but this is the
framework on which to build.
Clear and logical organization of the opinion will help the reader
understand it. The use of headings and subheadings, Roman numerals, or
other means of disclosing the organization to the reader is always helpful,
particularly where the opinion is long and the subject matter complex.
These not only provide road signs for the reader, they also help to organize
the writer's thoughts and test the logic of the opinion. They also enable a
judge who wishes not to join some part of the opinion to identify it. And
they assist in the indexing and classification of opinions and their retrieval
by researchers.
The following sections discuss each of the elements of an opinion.

Introduction
The purpose of the introduction is to orient the reader to the case. It
should state briefly what the case is about, the legal subject matter, and the
result. It may also state some or all of the following:
13

(1) The parties: the parties should be identified, if not in the introduc~
tion then early in the opinion, preferably by name, and that identification
should be used consistently throughout. The use oflegal descriptions, such
as "appellant" and "appellee," tends to confuse, especially in multi~party cases.
(2) The procedural and jurisdictional status: the basis for jurisdiction,
relevant prior proceedings, and how the case got before the court.
(3 ) The issue: the issue or issues to be decided, unless they are so complex
that they are better treated in a separate section.
Summarizing the holding at the outset can save time for readers,
particularly researchers who will be able to determine immediately whether
to read the rest of the opinion. Providing a terse summary of the holding at
the start of the opinion also helps the writer to state it precisely and
succinctly. The final version of the introduction may be best written after
the opinion is completed, when the judge has refined the issues, the
conclusions, and the supporting analysis.
Some judges prefer to place the holding and conclusion at the end,
believing that an opinion will be more persuasive if the reader must work
through it before learning the outcome.

Statement of issues
The statement of issues is the cornerstone of the opinion; how the issues
are formulated determines which facts are material and what legal prin~
ciples govern. Judges should not be prisoners of the attorneys' analysis; they
should frame the issues as they see them, even if this differs from how the
lawyers state them. That an issue has been raised by the parties does not
mean that it must be addressed in the opinion if it is not material to the
outcome.
The statement of issues should be brief. Although an issue or two can
often be sufficiently identified in the introduction, the number or complexity
of the issues in some cases may require separate statements.
The statement may come before or after the statement of facts. Stating
the issues first will make the fact statement more meaningful to the reader
and help focus on material facts. Judge Frederick G. Hamley of the Ninth
Circuit has written: "A preliminary statement of the question, even in
general terms, enables one to read the factual statement with discernment.
It also aids the writer of the opinion in confining the factual statement to
that which is essential." Section of Judicial Administration, American Bar

14

Association, Internal Operating Procedures of Appellate Courts 30 (1961).
In some cases, however, it may be difficult to state the issues clearly unless
the reader is familiar with the material facts. This may be true, for example,
where the issue is procedural and requires an explanation of the setting.
The statement of issues should not be confused with recitals of the
parties' contentions. Lengthy statements of the parties' contentions, occa~
sionally found in opinions, are not a substitute for analysis and reasoning
and should be avoided.

Facts
In a single~issue case, the facts can be set forth in one statement early in
the opinion. But when a series of issues is raised, some facts may be relevant
to fewer than all of the issues. This situation confronts the judge with the
difficult task of presenting enough facts at the outset to make the opinion
understandable without later repetition when discussing particular issues
that require further elaboration of facts. In such a case, the initial statement
of facts may be limited to necessary historical background, leaving the
specific decisional facts to be incorporated in the analysis of the issues on
which they bear.
Only the facts that are necessary to explain the decision should be
included, but what is necessary to explain the decision is not always obvious
and may also vary depending on the audience. An unpublished memoran~
dum opinion intended only for the parties does not require background or
hisrorical facts; the opinion need only identify the facts that support the
conclusion. Background facts, however, may sometimes be helpful in giving
the context of a decision and explaining its rationale. And opinions that are
likely to be read by audiences other than the parties may require lengthier
fact statements to provide the context for the decision and delineate its
scope.
Excessive factual detail can be distracting. Dates, for example, tend to
confuse and should not be included unless material to the decision or
helpful to its understanding. On the other hand, while brevity and simplic~
ity are always desirable, they are secondary to the need for a full and fair
statement. Facts significant to the losing side should not be ignored.
Some judges like to include facts that, while not material, add color.
"We've got to have some fun," one judge said. Some feel that this is a mark
of the author's flair and improves readability. There is an obvious danger,

15

however, that the reader may think the decision is based on these facts even
though they are not material to the reasoning. Moreover, this style of
writing - though appealing to the author - may be seen by the parties as
trivializing the case. It must therefore be approached with caution.
Above all, the statement of facts must be accurate. The writer should not
assume that the facts recited in the parties' briefs are stated correctly. There
is no substitute for checking fact references against the record. No matter
how good the lawyers, the judge may find that the record facts differ from
the way they are stated in the briefs. If time does not permit the judge to read
the entire record personally, a law clerk should be assigned that task with
instructions to mark all the relevant parts for the judge to review.

Discussion of legal principles
The discussion of legal principles is the heart of the opinion. It must
demonstrate that the court's conclusion is based on reason and logic. It
should persuade the reader of the correctness of the result by the power of
its reasoning, not by advocacy or argument. The judge must deal with
arguably contrary authority and opposing argument, and must confront the
issues squarely and deal with them forthrightly. Although the opinion need
not address every case and contention, the discussion must be sufficient to
demonstrate to the losing party that the essentials of its position have been
fully considered.
The following guidelines apply to the discussion of legal principles.

Standard of review
The opinion should specify the controlling standard of review at the
outset of the discussion oflegal principles. Unless the reader is told whether
review is under the de novo, the clearly erroneous, or the abuse of discretion
standard, the meaning of the decision may be obscure. Specifying the
standard of review, moreover, disciplines the writer's analysis.
Appendix C provides examples of different standads of review.

Order of discussion
Just as the court should not be wedded to counsel's formulation of the
issues, it should not feel compelled to address the issues in the order in which
counsel presented them. The order in which to address the issues will be
dictated by the organization of the opinion. Generally, dispositive issues

16

should be discussed first. The order in which those issues are taken up will
be governed by the opinion's reasoning. If non-dispositive issues are
addressed at all - for educational reasons or to guide further proceedings
- discuss them near the end of the opinion.

Which issues to address
As a general proposition, an opinion should not range beyond the issues
presented; it should address only the issues that need to be resolved to decide
the case. If the court determines that an issue not raised by the parties is
dispositive and should be addressed - even though the parties have not
properly preserved and presented it - the court should notify counsel and
provide an opportunity to brief it.
Issues not necessary to the decision but seriously urged by the losing
party should be discussed only,to the extent necessary to show that they
have been considered. The line between what is and is not necessary to the
decision, however, is not always clear. Occasionally, a full explanation of
the rationale for a decision may be enhanced by discussion of matters not
strictly a part of the holding. Moreover, considerations of economy and
efficiency may argue in favor of addressing issues not necessary to the
decision if the court can thereby provide useful guidance for the lower court
on remand. In doing so, however, judges must be careful not to prejudge
issues that are not before them and to avoid advisory opinions and
unnecessary expressions of views that may tie the court's hands in a future
case.

Alternative holdings
Stating separate and independent grounds for a decision adds strength
to the decision but diminishes its value as a precedent. Professor Bernard
Witkin argues that judges should avoid such "even if' or "assuming
arguendo that" rulings. See B. E. Witkin, Manual on Appellate Court
Opinions § 81 (1977). Statements such as "even if the facts were otherwise"
or "assuming arguendo that we had not concluded thus and so" undermine
the authority of the holding. Witkin suggests either limiting the "even if'
approach to situations where it is necessary to acllieve a majority decision,
or avoiding it completely by phrasing the opinion in such a manner that the
alternative assumption is disposed of first and the substantial ground of the
opinion stated last. But in opinions that are likely to have little impact as

17

precedent, there is no reason why the court should not base its decision on
alternative grounds, without giving one precedence over the other.

Case citations
Most points of law are adequately supported by citation of the latest
decision on point in the court's circuit or the watershed case, if there is one.
String citations and dissertations on the history of the rule add nothing
when the matter is settled in the circuit. Judges should resist the temptation
of trying to impress people with their (or their law clerks') erudition. If there
is no authority in the circuit, it is appropriate to cite authority on point from
other circuits. If an opinion breaks new ground, however, the court should
marshal existing authority and analyze the evolution of the law sufficiently
to support the new rule.

Secondary sources
Because law review articles, treatises, texts, and non-legal sources are
not primary authority, they should be cited sparingly and only to serve a
purpose. That may be to refer to a sound analysis supporting the reasoning
of the opinion. Some authors are so well respected in their fields that, in the
absence of a case on point, their word is persuasive. Occasionally, public
documents or other published works will shed light on relevant historical
or policy considerations.

Quotations
If something important to the opinion has been said well before, quoting
relevant language from a case on point can be more persuasive and
informative than merely citing or paraphrasing it. The impact of a quote,
however, is inversely proportional to its length. Quote briefly, and only
when the language makes an important point.
While quotes should be short, they must also be fair. They must be in
context and accurately reflect the tenor of their source.

Avoiding advocacy
Justifying a decision will sometimes require explaining why contrary
arguments were rejected. In addressing the main contentions of the losing
side, however, an opinion should not become an argument between the
judge and the lawyers, or other judges on the court, or the court below. If

18

- - - - - - - " - - --"""-----

the losing side has raised substantial contentions, the opinion should
explain why they were rejected. But it need not refute the losing party's
arguments point by point or adopt a contentious or adversarial tone.
An opinion can - and properly should - carry conviction without
becoming a tract. Put aside emotion and personal feelings, and avoid using
adjectives and adverbs unless they convey information material to the
decision.

Treatment of the court below
Appellate opinions can and should correct trial court errors and provide
guidance on remand without embroidering on the circumstances or criticizing the court below. An appellate opinion need not attack a trial court's
wisdom, judgment, or even its attitude in order to reverse its decision. And
it should avoid unnecessary criticism, such as for having failed to consider
authority or resting on improper motives.

Concluding paragraph
Disposition of a case - and the mandate to the lower court or agency,
when that is a part of the disposition - is the most important part of the
conclusion. Appellate courts should not speak in riddles. Simply to remand
a case "for further proceedings consistent with the opinion" may leave the
court below at sea. Opinions must spell out clearly what the lower courts or
agencies are expected to do without, however, trespassing on what remains
entrusted to their discretion. Thus, even where an abuse of discretion is
found, the appellate court's decision is on the law, and the lower court or
agency on remand retains the authority to exercise its discretion properly.
Appendix D contains examples of concluding paragraphs that provide
clear instructions to the lower court or agency.

Summary disposition
Summary disposition may be appropriate in cases where only the parties
and their lawyers are interested in the result, the facts are not complex, and
the precedents are clear. It may take the form of a one-sentence order or a
brief memorandum. See Appendix B.

19

The coun: should state its reason for making a summary disposition.
Where a summary disposition is pursuant to circuit or local rule, that rule
should be cit,~d.

Issuing opinions orally from the bench
AppellatE panels rarely rule from the bench. When they do, their
decision may be memorialized simply in a one-line order, the reasons having
been expressed orally.
Trial judges commonly deliver rulings from the bench. Even after a trial,
Fed. R. Civ. P. 52{a) authorizes judges to state their findings of fact and
conclusions c flaw orally from the bench. This practice saves much time and
holds down the backlog of submissions. Having attorneys submit proposed
findings and conclusions in advance of trial facilitates oral rulings, though
the court must make its own, independent determination of fact and law.
On occasion, a judge will orally announce a ruling, or proposed ruling, and
state that an opinion will follow. This presents obvious hazards: with the
case more or less decided, the pressure is off and the judge may have trouble
getting around to writing the opinion. Moreover, the judge may later find
it difficult to write an opinion in a way consistent with the earlier oral ruling
and might even arrive at a different result.

20

Language, Style, and
Self--Editing
Characteristics of bad writing
The judges who were interviewed for this manual identified the follow~
ing as the major problems in judicial writing.

Wordiness
Wordiness means not just verbosity - using two words \ !hen one will
do - but trying to convey too much information, covering to ) rnany issues,
and simply writing too much. In trying to write authorita,tively, some
judicial writers belabor the obvious in lengthy discussion of uncontroversial
propositions. Often wordiness reflects the writer's failure (or inability) to
separate the material from the immaterial and do the grubby work of editing.

Lack of precision and clarity
Precision is the main concern of good writing. Some legal writers lack
the ability to write simple, straightforward prose. Often this is the result of
lawyers' tendency to find cover by over~generalizing: when the writer i3 not
sure of a legal principle or of how to state it precisely, vague expression
finesses the difficulty. To write with clarity and precision, the writer must
know precisely what he or she wants to say and must say that and nothing
else. The thought is the origin of the word, and the word is no better than
the thought from which it springs.
Precision in judicial writing is important not simply as a matter of style
but also because judges write for posterity. Once an opinion is filed, lawyers
and others will read it with an eye to how they can use it to serve their
particular purpose, no matter how remote that may be from what the writer
had in mind. Thus, it is well for judicial writers to think how their words
might be used, and write to forestall theitmisuse.
Painstaking and thoughtful editing is essential for precise writing. This

21

means going over the opinion, sentence by sentence, and asking: What do
I mean to say here, and have I said it and no more?

Poor organization
A sound opinion is the reflection of a logical process of reasoning from
premises through principles to conclusions. The framework in which that
process takes place should be visible to the reader from the organization of
the opinion. That organization will be a road map enabling the reader to
follow from the beginning to the end without getting lost.

Cryptic analysis
While brevity is desirable, judges must elaborate their reasoning sufficiently so that the reader can follow. An opinion that omits steps in the
reasoning essential to understanding will fail to serve its purposes.

Pomposity and humor
Judicial writing can be pompous. The judge must be vigilant for
evidence of pomposity, such as arcane or florid expressions, use of the
imperial "we" by a single district judge, or excursions into irrelevant
erudition. Although humor is sometimes rationalized as an antidote to
pomposity, it works better in after-dinner speeches than in judicial opinions. In the latter it may strike the litigants - who are not likely to see
anything funny in the litigation - as a sign of judicial arrogance and lack
of sensitivity. Though some judges seem to have succeeded with humor, it
is a risk not to be taken lightly. Nor need it be taken, for writing can be made
lively, forceful, and interesting by clarity and rhetoric.

Guides for good writing
The following guides are suggested to help writers recognize and avoid
the problems listed above.

Eliminate unnecessary words
It is difficult to improve on Professor Strunk's injunction to omit
needless words:
Vigorous writing is concise. A sentence should contain no unnecessary
words, a paragraph no unnecessary sentences, for the same reason that a
drawing should have no unnecessary lines and a machine no unnecessary

22

parts. This requires not that the writer make all his sentences short, or that
he avoid all detail and treat his subjects only in outline, but that every
word tell.
W. Strunk & E. B. White, The Elements of Style 23 (3d ed. 1979).

Be succinct and direct
Brevity promotes clarity. Writing that makes its point briefly is more
likely to be understood than writing that is lengthy. Writing succinctly also
forces the writer to think with precision by focusing on what he or she is
trying to say.
Judicial writing should be direct. Use simple, declarative sentences and
short paragraphs most of the time, but vary sentence length and structure
where necessary for emphasis, contrast, and reader interest. Prefer the
active voice and avoid constructions such as "it is said," "it is argued," and
"it is well founded." Weed out adjectives and eliminate adverbs such as
"clearly," "plainly," and "merely."

Write plain English
Even complex ideas can be expressed in simple language understandable
by the general reader. To write in simple language requires that the writer
understand the idea fully, enabling him or her to break it down into its
essential components. For example, although electricity is a complex
scientific phenomenon, it can be explained in terms lay persons understand.
The same is true of tax, antitrust, and patent law, to take some examples.
Avoid "legalese," cliches, hackneyed phrases ("as hereinabove set forth,"
for example), Latin expressions ("vel non," for examp Ie), and j argon. When
using words of art, consider whether they are commonly understood among
the likely audience or require plain English definition. There is a place for
the elegant word, but it should not be necessary for the reader to have a
dictionary at hand while reading the opinion.
Writing gender~neutral prose, though laudable, can lead to convoluted
constructions when the writer tries to avoid the use of the personal
pronoun; it should be practiced in moderation.

23

Footnotes and citations
Footnotes
The purpose of a footnote is to convey information that would disrupt
the flow of the opinion if included in the text. The first question to ask about
a prospective footnote is whether its content is appropriate for inclusion in
the opinion. If it is not important enough to go into the text, the writer must
have some justification for including it in the opinion at all. Footnotes can
be appropriate to convey information, such as the text of a statute or
material from the record, that supports the language of the opinion but is
not immediately necessary to understand it. They can be used by the court
to acknowledge and briefly dispose of tangential issues. Some judges place
all citations in footnotes, leaving the text entirely for discussion. But
footnotes should not be inserted for the writer's gratification or as a
repository for information that the writer does not know what to do with.
Some judges, conscious of the tendency to overuse footnotes, are striving to
eliminate or at least reduce the number of footnotes in their opinions. See,
e.g., Mikva, Goodbye to Footnotes, 56 U. Colo. L. Rev. 647 (1985).

Citation formats
The two leading legal citation manuals are A Unifonn System of Citation
(the "Blue Book") and the University ofChicago Manual ofLegal Citation (the
"Maroon Book"). A judge may find it convenient to follow one or the other
of these manuals in citing primary and secondary sources. Mastering the
arcana of citation forms, however, is not a productive use of judges' or law
clerks' time. The purpose of citations is to assist researchers in identifying
and finding the sources; a form of citation that will serve that end is
sufficient. In addition the form of citation should be consistent to avoid the
appearance of lack of craftsmanship and care.
Some judges maintain personal citation forms or style manuals to reflect
their preferences. Such forms and manuals promote consistency, help
orient new clerks, and encourage careful preparation of opinions.

Edit carefully
Careful writers must edit their work critically to clarify the ambiguities,
eliminate the superfluous, smooth the transitions, and tighten the structure.
This is not an easy task because writers reading their own writing are prone
to read what they meant to write rather than what they actually wrote.
24

Judges must strive to be objective about their writing, to read every
paragraph carefully, and not to slide over text because it is familiar. A judge
editing his or her own work must always ask such questions as: Have I said
precisely what I intended to say? Is there a better way to say it? Does the
thought flow clearly and logically? Will the reader understand it?
The following techniques should help judicial writers improve their selfcritical faculties.

Reread and revise
Editing involves striking needless words and unnecessary facts, rewriting unclear and sloppy sentences, eliminating repetition, reorganizing, and
making the opinion cleaner, sharper, and tighter. "I spend a lot of time
editing, clearing away my own and the clerks' underbrush," one judge said.
"The underbrush may be valuable some place or some time, but not here and
now." This process may take the judge through many drafts before a
polished opinion emerges.
Word processors have become a boon to writers and editors. They
greatly speed up the writing process and facilitate editing and revising. But
proofreading on a word processor is demanding, and without careful and
repeated checking of a printed copy, typographical and other errors are
easily missed.
Editing should not focus solely on language, grammar, and style. Judges
must check for internal consistency. Go back to the introduction to see
whether the opinion has addressed all of the issues and answered the
questions as they were initially formulated. Reread the statement of facts to
see whether it covers all the facts significant to the decision and no more.
Review the legal discussion to see whether the opinion has addressed in
logical order the issues that need to be addressed. Consider whether the
conclusion follows from the discussion.

Put the draft aside and come back to it with a fresh mind
The editing process is improved if the judge will "let the draft sit for a
while and simmer," as one judge said. Though time constraints and
mounting caseloads may make it difficult to hold up the work, a delay of
even a few days will serve to add a measure of objectivity to the review. It
may help the judge see things not seen earlier, gain new insights, and think
of new ideas.

25

Ask a fresh reader to criticize a draft
A law clerk who has not worked on the opinion can serve a useful
function by reading the draft with a fresh eye and offering editorial and
substantive criticism. But even the law clerk who has assisted the judge can
provide an editorial perspective that will help produce a finished product.

26

Dissents, Concurrences, and
Writing with Other Judges
Appellate opinions represent the collective decision of several judges.
The judge who writes the opinion must take into account the thinking of
the other judges of the panel or en bane court and incorporate the group's
thinking into the opinion's rationale. Sometimes several judges participate
in preparing an opinion, for example, when an opinion is written jointly or
when judges comment on drafts prepared by the judge assigned to write the
opinion. When the opinion does not represent the thinking of all of the
members of the court, some judges may choose to prepare concurring or
dissenting opinions. This chapter discusses some of the collegial consider,
ations in opinion writing.

Joint opinion writing
In some circuits, the complexity and number of issues involved in a
single case have resulted in jointly written opinions. Sometimes the
opinion is designated a per curiam, at other times the authors of the different
sections are identified. The review of long and technical administrative
records in the D.C. Circuit, for example, frequently produces such opinions.
See, e.g., National Wildlife Federation v. Hodel, 839 F.2d 694 (D.C. Cir.
1988), and Ohio v. U.S. Department of Interior, 880 F.2d 432 (D.C. Cir.
1989). See also Chemical Manufacturers Association v. Environmental Protec,
tion Agency, 870 F.2d 177 (5th Cir. 1989).
When a panel chooses to issue a joint opinion, considerable planning
and coordination by both judges and law clerks are necessary to ensure a
readable and coherent final opinion. A longer,than,usual post' argument
conference is desirable to discuss the assignment of opinion parts, their
interdependence, and joint assumptions or factual predicates. The se,
quence of sections may need to be determined to avoid confusion and
repetition of basic facts or legal analyses.

27

Generally, one judge on the panel must assume coordinating authority
and circulate an outline and summary of the proposed sections before
writing begins. One judge, usually the coordinating judge, must also take
responsibility for writing the introduction and conclusion, covering all
sections. The introduction is usually brief and confined to a statement of the
proceedings 'eading to the court challenge. The facts in detail are better
presented as needed in the individual sections.
After the authors have drafted and approved the various sections, the
coordinating judge should assume authority to make non-substantive
changes to avoid duplication or gross stylistic differences. The law clerks
usually meet to ensure a uniform citation and heading format.
As cases become more complex and time-consuming, courts can be
expected to make increased use of jointly written opinions to avoid delay
and tying up one judge for too long. With careful planning, it is possible to
maintain high standards of writing for these opinions.

Commenting on a draft
prepared by another judge
Judges circulate draft opinions to other judges on a panel or en banc
court to ensure that the opinion reflects the rationale of the judges in the
majority. When commenting on an opinion written by another judge, it is
always appropriate to comment on the substance of an opinion, but
inappropriate to comment on matters of style. When the distinction
between substance and style is fuzzy, comments are appropriate if the matter
in question seems to speak for the court and thus might send a message that
does not represent the view of the other members.
If, for example, the discussion of a substantive issue is not written clearly,
the other judges should bring this to the attention of the writing judge.
When a citation to a case or law review article may represent a rationale that
is not adopted by other judges, they should express their disagreement to the
writing judge. When, however, a reviewing judge objects to stylistic,
grammatical, or language choices simply on the basis of personal preference,
such comments are best left unexpressed. Nevertheless, while judges are not
grading the work of their colleagues, it is helpful to point out minor matters
such as typographical errors or other "nits," either by a note to the author
or by a telephone call between law clerks.

28

Dissenting opinions
Dissenting opinions serve several purposes. They may help to attract en
banc or certiorari review and to isolate and refine the issues for further
appeal. They may attract legislative action to correct possible shortcomings
in the law. Dissenting opinions may also help to narrow the scope of a
decision by pointing out the possible dangers of the position that the
majority has taken or by sending signals to other judges and to the bar as to
the limits of a particular decision and its effect on similar cases in the future.
In these ways, dissenting opinions can serve useful functions in communicating important information to an opinion's audiences and aiding the
growth of the law.
Dissenting opinions are written at a potential cost, however. A dissent
that strikes a strident or preachy note may contribute to divisiveness and ill
feelings on the court, may undermine the authority of the opinion and of
the court as an institution, and may create confusion. Whether to dissent
may depend on the nature of the case and the principle at issue. Dissents
generally should not be written when the principle at issue is settled and the
decision has little significance outside the specific case. Cases that involve
emerging legal principles or statutory interpretation in areas that will affect
future activities of the bar, the public, and the government are more likely
to warrant dissenting opinions than cases of limited application. The issue
should be significant enough that the judge's "fever is aroused," as one judge
said, but the motivation should be to further the development of the law
rather than to vent personal feelings. Judges considering whether to dissent
should ask themselves whether the likely benefits outweigh the potential
costs.
If a judge decides that writing a dissent will serve a useful purpose, it
should be written as carefully and responsibly as the opinion of the court.
Rarely should a judge dissent without opinion; doing so communicates no
information to the opinion's readers. The argument should focus on the
critical principles and distinguish the dissenter's rationale from that of the
majority. But it is one thing to state the points of disagreement forcefully
and effectively, and another to engage in argument or advocacy. A dissenting opinion should not simply slash at the majority opinion or its author.
Personal attacks, offensive language, and condescending rone should not be
used, although some judges believe that moral outrage and restrained
indignation may sometimes be appropriate.

29

Appendix E contains examples of dissenting opinions that take a
temperate, reasoned tone in reflecting sincere disagreement with the
majority.

Concurrences
Most of the considerations applicable to dissenting opinions also apply
to concurrences. Concurrences are appropriate where they are intended to
define with greater precision the scope of an opinion or otherwise inform
the parties and other audiences of what the writer believes are important
points. Thus, judges may issue concurrences where there are two argued
grounds for a decision, the majority justifies its decision on one of those
grounds, and other judges believe the alternative grounds should be stated.
Concurrences may also serve to indicate to parties in future cases how far
the court is willing to go down a road, and where the road ends. A
concurring opinion should not be written simply to add a point of view or
personal statement that does not further either the decisional or educational value of the opinion. The question should be: Am I writing this for
myself or for the good of the court?
Judges should include in their concurring opinions a statement of
reasons why they are concurring specially. The point is not to present an
alternative opinion of the court, but to indicate the point of departure from
the majority and to further define the contours of the opinion. Concurrences should not rehash the facts and legal principles on which the
majority based its decision, except to the extent that differences in the
factual findings and legal conclusions are significant to the concurring point
of view. The arguments should be principled and the tone should be
instructive but not pedantic.
Appendix F contains examples of useful and narrowly written concurring opinions.

30

Reading About Writing
A dictionary, a thesaurus, a citation manual, and a reference manual are
the basic writing aids judges should have at hand. Judges should also be
familiar with manuals on style and grammar and refer to them when
questions arise. Strunk & White's The Elements of Style is clear and concise.
Fowler's Modern English Usage and Follett's Modern American Usage are
comprehensive and authoritative. "I think judges should constantly read
books on writing," one judge said.
Some judges find that reading old opinions helps them to improve the
clarity of their writing. "Sometimes I'll remember an opinion that I think
was particularly good in terms of teaching the legal principles," one judge
said. "The old opinion will become sort of a textbook for how to skin that
cat."
Beyond that, "I always tell my clerks to go back and read some good
authors to see how they write and then try to think about that when they
are writing law," one judge said. Another observed:
I find the best tool for trying to keep your writing from being totally dull
and hard to read is to read non-legal things. I think the more non-legal
books you read, the more you pick up interesting popular terms having
application to the law and the more you can stay away from legal jargon
or the same tired old words. I find that reading outside of the law,
sometimes a phrase will stick in your mind, sometimes a word, sometimes
an image. Analogizing to non-legal situations can liven up your writing,
as can introducing unexpected words and images.

This manual will not suggest what should be on a judge's non-legal
reading list (although several judges suggested that Ernest Hemingway's
lean style is an excellent model for legal writing). The following, however,
are books, articles, and other materials that will assist judicial writers in
preparing clear and concise opinions. In addition, there came to hand, as
this manual went to press, Judge Ruggero Aldisert's latest work, Opinion
Writing (1990), a book that should be on every judge's reading list.

31

Books
Advocacy and the King's English (Rossman ed. 1960)
R. Flesch, How to Write Plain English: A Book for Lawyers and
Consumers (1979)
J. J. George, Judicial Opinion Writing Handbook (2d ed. 1986)
R. A. Leflar, Appellate Judicial Opinions (1974)
D. Mellinkoff, The Language of the Law (1963)
R. A. Wasserstrom, The Judicial Decision: Toward a Theory of Legal
Justification (1961)
H. Weihofen, Legal Writing Style (1961)
R. H. Weisberg, When Lawyers Write (1987)
B. E. Witkin, Manual on Appellate Court Opinions (1977)

Articles
Aiken, Let's Not Oversimplify Legal Language, 32 Rocky Mtn. L. Rev. 358 (1960)
Bell, Style in]udicial Writing, 15 J. Pub. L. 214 (1966)
Benson, The End of Legalese: The Game Is Over, 13 Rev. L. & Soc. Change
519 (1984-85)
Douglas, How to Write a Concise Opinion, 22 Judges' J. 4 (Spring 1983)
Francis, A Faster, Better Way to Write Opinions, 27 Judges' J. 26 (Fall 1988).
Hager, Let's Simplify Legal Language, 32 Rocky Mtn. L. Rev. 74 (1959)
Hugg,]udicial Style: An Exemplar, 33 Loyola L. Rev. 865 (1987)
Leflar, Quality in]udicial Opinions, 3 Pace L. Rev. 579 (1983)
Leflar, Some Observations Conceming]udicial Opinions, 61 Colum. L. Rev.
810 (1961)
Mikva, For Whom]udges Write, 61 S. Cal. L. Rev. 1357 (1988)
Mikva, Goodbye to Footnotes, 56 U. Colo. L. Rev. 647 (1985)
Posner, Goodbye to the Bluebook, Appendix: University of Chicago Manual of
Legal Citation, 53 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1343 (1986)
Re, Appellate Opinion Writing (Federal Judicial Center 1977)
Schwarzer, Communicating with]uries: Problems and Remedies, 69 Calif. L. Rev.
731 (1981)
Stern, The Writingofjudicial Opinions, 18 Pa. Bar Ass'n Q. 40 (1946)
Wydick, Plain English for Lawyers, 66 Calif. L. Rev. 727 (1978)
Younger, Bad Writing = Bad Thinking, A.B.A. J. 90 (January 1,1987)

Other
A.B.A. Section of Judicial Administration, Internal Operating Procedures of
Appellate Courts (1961)
Institute of Judicial Administration, Appellate Courts: Internal Operating
Procedures-Preliminary Report (1957)

32

APPENDIX A
The following excerpt from a per curiam opinion is an example of a
memorandum opinion.
This is a consolidated appeal from two actions .... Defendants ... appeal
from final judgments of foreclosure and sale entered in the [district court]
dated July 6, 1989 and May 17, 1989. We need not recite the facts of this
case, since they are set forth in detail in the district court's wo thorough
opinions, reported at .... Familiarity with these facts is aSSl med. See also
[related action].
The principal argument of [defendants] on appeal is th;, t [he district
court erred in dismissing the "faithless agent" defense to foreclosure under
[state] law. That defense is an attempt to avoid the established rule of agency
law that a principal is liable to third parties for the acts of an agent operating
within the scope of the agent's real or apparent authority. See British
American & Eastern Co. v. Wirth Ltd., 592 F.2d 75, 80 (2d Cir. 1979).
Appellants ... do not contest that appellee ... , the mortgagee of the
properties involved here, was a third party. Nor do they deny that [appellee]
was dealing with their agent [land company] and that the latter was acting
within the scope of its apparent authority. Nevertheless, they invoke the
faithless agent defense, claiming that [appellee] should be barred from
foreclosing because it was aware of the mismanagement ofB_.
, who
was acting as president of [the land company]. To support this view, they
point to evidence that [appellee] believed that B
's mismanage~
ment was the root cause of the default.
We are not persuaded that the district court erred in rejecting the
faithless agent defense. Assuming arguendo that this defense may be
invoked under the right circumstances, we considered and rejected it in
[citation]. Indeed, the party asserting the faithless agent defense in [cita~
tion] appears to have been essentially the same, in all but name, as
[defendants]. [Citation.] Moreover, even if, as defendants contf'nd, principles
of collateral estoppel do not bar their claim, we find the reasoning of the
[citation] panel dispositive on this record. "It cannot be that a mortgagee's

33

awareness of defaults under a mortgage constitutes awareness that a managing agent is engaged in self-dealing." [Citation.] On the record before us,
"[f]aced with only conclusory allegations and unsupported factual assertions," we reject, as did the [citation] panel, the "'faithless agent' defense."
[Citation.]
The judgments of the district court are affirmed.

34

APPENDIXB
The following is an example of a summary order.
This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of record from the
United States District Court for the
District of _ _ and was taken
under submission.
1. Plaintiff ... appeals pro se from an order dated December 21, 1989 of
the United States District Court for the
District of
denying
appellant's motion for reconsideration of the district court's order of
October 12, 1989, which granted the crossmotion for summary judgment of
defendants-appellees .... This civil rights case arises out of appellees' failure
to hire appellant for a position at the Veterans Administration Medical
Center in ....
2. Appellant's principal claims on appeal appear to be that the district
court abused its discretion, misinterpreted the facts in this case, misapplied
various laws and misinterpreted Congress's intent in enacting Title VII of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
3. We have carefully examined all of appellant's claims, and they are
without merit. We affirm substantially for the reasons stated in the thorough
opinions of ... dated October 12, 1989 and December 21, 1989.
4. The order of the district court is affirmed.

35

APPENDIXC
The following are examples of standards of review.
We review a district court's denial of a motion for a new trial for an abuse
of discretion. Robins v. Harum, 773 F.2d 1004, 1006 (9th Cir. 1985). The
reviewing court must consider whether the decision of the lower court "was
based on a consideration of the relevant factors and whether there has been
a clear error of judgment." Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe,
401 U.S. 402, 416, 91 S.Ct. 814, 823, 28 L.Ed.2d 136 (1971).

*

*

*

Section 10(j) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.c. § 160(j)
(1982), authorizes district courts to grant interim injunctive relief to restore
and preserve the status quo pending the Board's decision on the merits of
an underlying unfair labor practice complaint. E.g., Asseo v. Pan American
Grain Co., Inc., 805 F.2d 23, 25 (1st Cir. 1986); Fuchs v. Hood Industries,
Inc., 590 F.2d 395, 397 (1st Cir. 1979). Under this statutory scheme, the
district court is limited to the determination of whether there is (1)
reasonable cause to believe that a violation of the Act, as alleged, has been
committed, and (2) whether injunctive relief is appropriate under the
circumstances. Asseo, 805 F.2d at 25; Maram v. Universidad Interamericana
de Puerto Rico, 722 F.2d 953,959 (1st Cir. 1983).
As we have previously stated, on appeal, this Court's review is:
limited to [determining] whether the district court was clearly erroneous
in finding reasonable cause to believe that there were unfair labor
practices and whether it abused its discretion in granting injunctive relief.
Union de Tronquistas de Puerto Rico v. Arlook, 586 F.2d 872,876 (1st Cir.
1978).

Asseo, 805 F.2d at 25. With these standards firmly in mind, we turn now to
the merits of the appeal.

*

*

36

*

In reviewing findings by bankruptcy courts, we and the district courts
may only reverse factual findings where we determine that they are clearly
erroneous. In re Killebrew, 888 F.2d 1516, 1519 (5th Cir. 1989). Legal
determinations, of course, we review de novo. In re Compton, 891 F.2d 1180,
1183 (5th Cir. 1990). As this appeal hinges upon whether [the debtor]
intentionally deceived [the creditor]-a factual determination-we apply
the clearly erroneous standard. Cf. In re Rubin, 875 F.2d 755, 758 (9th Cir.
1989).

37

APPENDIXD
The following are examples of concluding paragraphs:
For the foregoing reasons, the case is remanded to the district judge to
clarify as expeditiously as feasible whether he would impose the same
sentence if the lower Guidelines range of 10-16 months applied. In the
event that Judge
indicates that he would not impose a 16 month
sentence if criminal history category IV applied, [defendant]' ifhe wishes to
do so, may renew his appeal by filing a new notice of appeal within ten days
of the judge's ruling on remand and need not file additional briefs. This
panel retains jurisdiction in the event of such appeal.

*

*

*

*

*

*

We therefore grant the petition for review and order the [agency] not to
initiate further prosecutions under the Penalty Rules until the agency has
engaged in further rulemaking in accord with section 553. Nonetheless,
pursuant to our remedial powers, we hold that the [agency] is free to hold
pending cases in abeyance and resume prosecution upon the repromulgation
of a scheme for adjudicating administrative civil penalty actions under
section 1475.
For the reasons stated, we order the district court to do the following:
1) The court will reconsider its order in respect to VOC cleanup; it will
amend that order to require [defendant] to clean up VOCs in the soil at the
... site to a level that it determines "public health" and the "public interest"
require. 2) The court will reconsider the matter of "indirect costs," explaining, as we have set forth above, any denial of those costs as a sanction. In
all other respects the judgment of the district court is affirmed.

38

APPENDIXE
The following are examples of brief dissenting opinions:
The reasons why I am constrained to dissent may be briefly stated.
The question whether an anti-takeover provision provides a "special
protection" to debentureholders cannot be answered in the negative merely
because the "Independent Directors" decided to waive its provisions and
approve a particular transaction. These directors were explicitly empowered to act in this fashion by virtue of the fully disclosed terms of the
provision. A significant function of an anti-takeover provision is to serve as
a deterrent to hostile takeovers, including takeovers which would be
contrary to the interests of both shareholders and debentureholders. One
cannot, I believe, fairly characterize such a provision as being "worthless"
to the debentureholders, even though as a matter of Delaware law directors
owe a fiduciary duty solely to shareholders. The anti-takeover provision was
therefore a "special protection" to debentureholders, albeit a limited one.
Federal securities laws do not impose an obligation to advise investors
of the fundamentals of corporate governance. The disclosure required by
the federal securities laws is not a "rite of confession or exercise in common
law pleading. What is required is the disclosure of material objective factual
matters." Data Probe Acquisition Corp. v. Data Lab, Inc. 722 F.2d 1, 5-6 (2d
Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 465 u.s. 1052, 104 S. Ct. 1326, 79 L. Ed. 2d 722
(1984). Especially is this so where, as here, the investor complainants are
sophisticated financial institutions making major investments. The role of
the federal securities laws is not to remedy all perceived injustices in
securities transactions. Rather, as invoked in this case, it proscribes only the
making of false and misleading statements or material omissions.
Whether the Independent Directors breached an implied duty of good
faith or otherwise acted contrary to their fiduciary obligations are matters
of state law. Here, the federal claims were asserted only conditionally, the
express condition being the failure of the state law claims. These state
claims were properly dismissed by the court below for lack of pendent
jurisdiction.
39

Believing no valid federal claim to be present, I would affirm essentially
for the reasons set forth in the Opinions of the Magistrate and District
Court.

*

*

*

In many respects this case represents good police work. It is clear,
however, that defendants were of abnormally low intelligence and that
Miranda warnings were not given. Even though appellants had not been
taken in custody, it is also true they had not been furnished counsel or
waived same. As the district court held, the government agents should have
taken furthel precautions to insure that [defendants] understood the situation and their rights. See Henry v. Dees, 658 F.2d 406,411 (5thCir.1981).

40

-----~--

-------

APPENDIXF
The following are examples of brief, narrowly written concurring
opinions:
I concur with most of} udge
's thoughtful discussion of the issues
in this case. I am fully in accord with Part IIA and C and the rationale with
respect to the claims against the [defendant] and the state law claims. I agree
also with the statement in Part IIB that "[d]ue process concerns are clearly
not implicated in [defendants'] actions with regard to the letter from .... "
I agree further that there is "no support ... for plaintiff's fanciful conspiracy
theory."
I find no necessity, however, to adopt the statement quoted from Rice v.
Ohio Department ofTransportation, 887 F.2d 716, 719 (6thCir.1989), which
may beinterpreted to mean that the doctrine of Will v. Michigan Department
ofState Police, -u .S.-, 109 S. Ct. 2304, 105 LEd. 2d 45 (1989), somehow
bars suits under § 1983 against state officials when those officials are being
sued in their individual capacities. I do not view Will as barring § 1983 suits
against state officials whenever the suits concern actions taken in their
official capacities. Instead, I believe that Will bars suits against state officials
only when those officials are sued in their official capacities.
Accordingly, I would affirm the decision of the district court that under
the facts of this case defendants ... enjoy qualified immunity.

*

*

*

I concur with the results reached by Judge _ _ and in his opinion
except as to his analysis of the First Amendment issue. For the reasons stated
in my concurring opinion in [citation], I believe the ... regulations are
permissible time, place, and mannerrestrictions on speech in the [plaintiffs]
profession.

Ru.s. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OJIIItCE: 1m • 454-615112763 41

The Federal Judicial Center is the research, development, and training arm of the federal judicial system. It was established by Congress
in 1967 (28 U.S.c. §§ 620-629), on the recommendation of the
Judicial Conference of the United States.
By statute, the Chief Justice of the United States is chairman of
the Center's Board, which also includes the director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts and six judges elected by the Judicial
Conference.
The Center's Continuing Education & Training Division provides
educational programs and services for all third branch personnel.
These include orientation seminars, regional workshops, on-site
training for support personnel, and tuition support.
The Innovations & Systems Development Division designs and
tests new technologies, especially computer systems, that are useful for
case management and court administration. The division also contributes to the training required for the successful implementation of
technology in the courts.
The Publications Division edits and coordinates the production of
all Center publications, including research reports and studies, educational and training publications, reference manuals, and periodicals.
The Center's Information Services Office, which maintains a specialized collection of materials on judicial administration, is located
within this division.
The Research Division undertakes empirical and exploratory
research on federal judicial processes, court management, and
sentencing and its consequences, usually at the request of the Judicial
Conference and its committees, the courts themselves, or other
groups in the federal court system.
The Special Educational Services Division is responsible for the
production of educational audio and video media, educational publications, and special seminars and workshops. The Federal Judicial
History Office, created in response to Congress's mandate that the
Center conduct programs relating to judicial branch history, is located
within this division.

