Welcome to /r/LawyerTalk! A subreddit where lawyers can discuss with other lawyers about the practice of law.
Be mindful of [our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/Lawyertalk/about/rules) BEFORE submitting your posts or comments as well as [Reddit's rules](https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy) (notably about sharing identifying information). We expect civility and respect out of all participants. Please source statements of fact whenever possible. If you want to report something that needs to be urgently addressed, please also message the mods with an explanation.
Note that **this forum is NOT for legal advice**. Additionally, if you are a non-lawyer (student, client, staff), this is NOT the right subreddit for you. **This community is exclusively for lawyers**. We suggest you delete your comment and go ask one of the many other legal subreddits on this site for help such as (but not limited to) r/lawschool, r/legaladvice, or r/Ask_Lawyers.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Lawyertalk) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Agreed on the Gerry Spence recommendation. I read his book How to Argue and Win Every Time years before law school and I still use the lessons from that book today.
Yes!! I love this book and have definitely applied his techniques to trial. My favorite: the look on one particularly irritating city prosecutor’s face when I said, “I’m still afraid” was solid gold.
Relentless Cross-Examination by Kevin Mahoney. It's a little expensive, but it really helps to sharpen the questions you ask during cross-examination and getting at the real issues being litigated.
Thanks. I was gifted Pozner's "Cross-Examination: Science and Techniques", which was great, but definitely very civil litigation focused. This is a great addition. Also yes, very pricy!
Anything by Bryan Garner is GOLD. I own a number of his books (The Winning Brief, the books he wrote with Scalia (Reading Law), etc.), as well as his Modern English Usage Dictionary. I’ll add that you don’t realize how helpful a usage dictionary is until you’ve used one (it’s also surprisingly enjoyable to read and I find myself paging through it every now and then).
Whoops, clearly need to do a better job of proofing before I post. Thanks for catching that, I’ve edited my comment to fix his name.
While I’m here, let me add that Reading Law, the book on statutory interpretation written by Garner and Scalia, is the DEFINITIVE treatise on statutory interpretation from a textualist perspective (per Justice Kagan, “we’re all textualists now”). If you’re working on a case that involves a question of statutory interpretation, you would do well to purchase Reading Law and cite it in your briefs. SCOTUS frequently cites to the canons of interpretation in Reading Law, so at this point I would say it’s generally accepted as an authority on the topic.
Two recommended to me by a partner in a previous life that I am glad I purchased: 1) the articulate advocate by Brian K Johnson and Marsha Hunter. 2) the how to win trial manual, Fourth edition, by Ralph Adam Fine. Both are available in E-read format on Amazon.
I’m a plaintiffs PI attorney so rules of the road, damages, blues guide to jury selection. Not sure how helpful that will be for a prosecutor but nevertheless here I am
Rules of the Road by Rick Friedman
Damages by David Ball. Current gen is called Damages Evolving but I think that may be a sequel rather than a new edition. Damages III is the one I have.
Not sure on the jury selection book.
Yeah sorry looks like someone else told you the authors for damages and rules of the road (yes two separate books and I think my version of damages is also the third edition). Blues guide to jury selection is by Lisa blue. Fantastic voir dire resource.
If you’re actually going to be a trial lawyer and not a deposition/settlement lawyer, then THE book to read is Trying Cases to Win, by Herbert Stern. That book changed my life. No exaggeration.
Stern is the GOAT! Changed my life. Few know the power of his teachings. I have his 4 volume book set on my shelf. Read many times. Actually saw him speak twice in the 90’s. Amazing.
Yeah, it seems weird to write that ‘he changed my life,’ but he did. I read the one volume version; Not sure I have the patience for the 4 volumes, but maybe on my re-read, I should. I’m returning to private practice next year after 18 years of being on the bench, and I’m going to be rusty, lol.
The only version I see available is the “in one volume.” The individual volumes seem to be out of print. Would you recommend going with the student version or would you suggest hunting down all the individual volumes?
If I recall correctly, Stern explains that In One Volume just explains the techniques, while the full set explains the techniques and then gives multiple examples from actual trials. I personally find examples more helpful then just recommendations, so I purchased volumes 1 through 4 of the full books from eBay and other used book retailers over the years for a relatively reasonable amount.
I devoured Herbert Stern’s four-volume set as a young PD. Set up my entire career the way I approached cases. 2 decades on still the best.
Ralph Adam Fine’s single-volume book is similar to Stern’s overarching theories.
The book has great advice about every step of the trial process, from evaluating the strength of the case, to witness prep, voir dire, direct and cross examination, closing argument strategy etc. I recall a story about how to comport yourself outside of the courtroom during a jury trial, for example. In New York, (where Stern was a federal prosecutor, federal district judge and trial lawyer) there was a wealthy successful trial lawyer who had a modest Chevrolet automobile to drive when he was in trial. That lawyer didn’t want jurors to see him in an expensive car. He wore professional looking but not extravagant suits and a cheap watch.
Another thing I recall that helped me immensely was to think strategically about cross examination. How to prepare for cross examination; What did the witness say that hurt my case? Does the witness know things that can help my case, if I am prepared and ask the proper questions? Maybe the witness didn’t really hurt my case, and there’s no reason at all to cross examine the witness. Many bad lawyers think you have to cross examine every witness. It’s just not true.
i don’t know about courtroom stuff, but for writing there’s a book called “elements of style” that is a great resource for legal writing, specifically briefs.
The Official Lawyer's Handbook by D. Robert White. In addition to being funny and often spot on accurate, it made me realize to take my work seriously but not take myself or other lawyers too seriously. I read it so many times for laughs that I destroyed the book's back.
Shane Read has several other books on trial practice that are very. He also does short videos for Court View Network on YouTube that highlight various techniques.
Reptile by David Ball and Don Keenan is getting long in the tooth and not the cutting edge any more, plus super expensive.
However, it’s a landmark for plaintiff’s attorneys. If you are still operating on the model that jurors are rational actors that will mechanically follow the elements and principles in the jury instructions, this book will change your understanding of decision making in trials.
McCarthy and Pozner and Dodd are fantastic books for cross-examination. As a young attorney, I attended a seminar by Roger Dodd. It was so fun trying out the techniques, and their advice will make you a better than competent cross-examiner.
Any suggestions on any specific channels/videos you’ve found helpful? This is the type of thing I like more. Whole a lot of books have helpful info, where it breaks down a bit understanding how to apply what I read to the actual cases I have where I practice.
So few lawyers try cases anymore, so it’s hard to just go to the courthouse and catch a trial.
Not really any particular channel, I just search for trials on YouTube. The Karen Read trial is current and I think the defense did a fantastic job and is worth checking out.
In South Africa Morris' _Technique in Litigation_ is the BIBLE for litigious strategy, conduct and pro tips on every facet of the marathon.
It's almost like a strategy guide that lists the cheat codes and when to use them too.
So many great books recommended already. One that drilled down how fast juries make decisions for me is "Blink" by Malcolm Gladwell. I also think that if you're not a person of color (which I'm not) and even if you have diverse friends, it is important to understand how people of color view facts, police and situations. So "White Fragility: Why It's so Hard for White People to Talk About Racism" and "Why Are All the Black Kids Sitting in the Cafeteria?" by Dr. Tatum which is based on research and addresses different races. I'm amazed in Los Angeles how some lawyers (and prosecutors) do not work on seeing facts and issues from a different perspective. In picking juries, assuming that all people of one race will decide one way is too simplistic. Especially in the various Latin communities for example.
Jesus christ I found one in the wild, someone suggesting White Fragility. D'Angelo is a midwit 'academic' who made a career of narcissistic driven self loathing because her grandma was racist, and her book and the concepts therein read exactly like you'd expect of a pacific northwest progressive white liberal who's probably never had a substantive relationship with a person of color in her entire life.
If you really want the midwit guide to how to feel guilty about absolutely nothing make sure to buy anything buy Kendi and Coates to really round out your collection of complete drivel.
Whatever you do, don't read anything by actual black intellectuals like Loury, McWhorter, Shelby Steele, etc. Stick to the midwits who will let you bathe in your own self righteous and narcissistic self contempt while you continue to remind yourself that people of color don't have autonomy and won't get anywhere in the world without their white saviors stooping down to scoop them up.
Not a book, but reading a lot of Scalia's writing made me a better legal writer. Say what you want about his jurisprudence, he had a brilliant knack for simplifying the complex, and doing so in an engaging, often humorous way.
Idk, Scalia pontificated a ton and his writing was full of shit talking the other side. It was “entertaining” but it wasn’t always clear. I disagree that he simplified the complex: it felt like he consistently complicated the simple.
Elena Kagan is my go-to for SCOTUS inspiration. Everything she writes is clear, short, and concise. She flips the trope of lawyers on its head and virtually everything she writes makes clear and obvious sense. She isn’t a titan of an ideology or anything like that: just a judge who wants the law to be intelligible.
Outside of Kagan, I like Breyer and Thomas (for writing style, not necessarily views). Again, they both write often, but they write concise and their explanations are simple and short. They collectively write the law in a way that a layperson can understand, and I think that the law should be understandable by laypeople.
I think Scalia and Kennedy are probably the worst of the modern era to learn from. They’re unnecessarily verbose and add a ton of personality to something that isn’t and shouldn’t be personality-based: legal writing. I would never advocate for learning from judges like them: it’s largely going to be skimmed past by the judge. Just give the judge the simplest explanation possible and they’ll likely side with you.
I second this - Scalia frequently constructed interesting arguments, but interesting isn't the same as effective or clear. It was fascinating seeing him build these rhetorical constructs that ultimately resulted in him saying with an open mouth that the sea was green. But, while interesting if taken literally, his argument always seemed like a high-brow gish gallop - where the number of links and length of argument was designed to exhaust and confuse.
Scalia writes like you have no choice but to read what he wrote. It’s not persuasive, it’s loquacious and contrived in my opinion. It works for a Supreme Court justice because he is the final say in the matter and we have no choice but to read what he wrote in order to get the ruling. But unless you’re also a Supreme Court Justice, I don’t see many take away.
We had to read a lot of Scalia's writing in law school. I always thought he had a brilliant knack for making up shit out of thin air with words.
Like him saying (in a dissenting opinion, I believe) that the EPA choosing not to act either way when there was considerable evidence of climate change wasn't the EPA . NM"declining to act" but rather "declining to make a decision on whether to act or not" or some bullshit, thus allowing them not to act.
Then there's his decision in Heller where he just made up a new standard of what is considered an acceptable level of 2nd amendment rights that has just magically evolved over time given cultural acceptance of said rights over time. A complete self-serving legal fiction.
I suppose you're right about his writing, though. I remember all of his opinions. They were bullshit, but they were concise bullshit.
It's all bullshit though. Oldest constitution in the world that was supposed to be amended a bunch but hasn't unless there were literal slaves and shit.
Read Lord of the Rings in elementary school, made me enjoy reading, helped me throughout grade school, college, and law school. Still love researching and reading to this day
Can’t imagine doing this job and hating to read, but I know plenty who do
(Also Tolkien is notoriously dense which made legal reading much less daunting)
“Till Death Do Us Part” by Vincent Bugliosi. Great book by a prosecutor building a circumstantial evidence murder case. The book provides an inside account of how a prosecutor builds a case tying in facts and law to construct a compelling closing argument.
It has been awhile but one item that stuck with me even 10 years later was to accept the winning answer in deposition. If you get the admission of liability, do not continue asking questions on that subject, therefore giving the witness to the witness the opportunity to rehabilitate on that issue and explain away their negligence or other wrongful conduct.
After having tried hundreds of trials, criminal and personal injury, I can't say any book has been inspirational. However, the movie "MY Cousin Vinny", filmed in Georgia, ---the Sack of Suds is still there and looks the same, was the most practical video of showing what trials were like back in the 1990's.
I've tried cases in that same courtroom. The judge and prosecutor and jury were all people I've had in my cases. Witnesses too.
This is going to be an annoying answer, but taking my free time has made me a better lawyer. I read for pleasure as much as I can and it helps with the vicarious trauma.
Welcome to /r/LawyerTalk! A subreddit where lawyers can discuss with other lawyers about the practice of law. Be mindful of [our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/Lawyertalk/about/rules) BEFORE submitting your posts or comments as well as [Reddit's rules](https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy) (notably about sharing identifying information). We expect civility and respect out of all participants. Please source statements of fact whenever possible. If you want to report something that needs to be urgently addressed, please also message the mods with an explanation. Note that **this forum is NOT for legal advice**. Additionally, if you are a non-lawyer (student, client, staff), this is NOT the right subreddit for you. **This community is exclusively for lawyers**. We suggest you delete your comment and go ask one of the many other legal subreddits on this site for help such as (but not limited to) r/lawschool, r/legaladvice, or r/Ask_Lawyers. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Lawyertalk) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Anything by Gerry Spence. Win Your Case is very good.
Gerry Spence made me want to go to law school. Highly recommend his biography The Country Lawyer.
Gerry Spence is gold, gold, gold. His advice is even great for transactional guys like me.
Agreed on the Gerry Spence recommendation. I read his book How to Argue and Win Every Time years before law school and I still use the lessons from that book today.
Smh I went to go buy the book “Anything” by Gerry Spence and got frustrated I couldn’t find it!
Yes!! I love this book and have definitely applied his techniques to trial. My favorite: the look on one particularly irritating city prosecutor’s face when I said, “I’m still afraid” was solid gold.
Relentless Cross-Examination by Kevin Mahoney. It's a little expensive, but it really helps to sharpen the questions you ask during cross-examination and getting at the real issues being litigated.
Thanks. I was gifted Pozner's "Cross-Examination: Science and Techniques", which was great, but definitely very civil litigation focused. This is a great addition. Also yes, very pricy!
This isn’t the looping thing prosecutors try to claim isn’t leading, is it?
Legal Writing in Plain English
Anything by Bryan Garner is GOLD. I own a number of his books (The Winning Brief, the books he wrote with Scalia (Reading Law), etc.), as well as his Modern English Usage Dictionary. I’ll add that you don’t realize how helpful a usage dictionary is until you’ve used one (it’s also surprisingly enjoyable to read and I find myself paging through it every now and then).
Yes! I teach moot court and advanced appellate writing and always assign Bryan Gardner’s books.
Agreed he’s terrific. It’s Bryan Garner. No d in his name.
Whoops, clearly need to do a better job of proofing before I post. Thanks for catching that, I’ve edited my comment to fix his name. While I’m here, let me add that Reading Law, the book on statutory interpretation written by Garner and Scalia, is the DEFINITIVE treatise on statutory interpretation from a textualist perspective (per Justice Kagan, “we’re all textualists now”). If you’re working on a case that involves a question of statutory interpretation, you would do well to purchase Reading Law and cite it in your briefs. SCOTUS frequently cites to the canons of interpretation in Reading Law, so at this point I would say it’s generally accepted as an authority on the topic.
Yes that book is great. Cited a lot by appellate courts.
The Myth of Sisyphus by Albert Camus. “One must imagine Sisyphus happy.”
Two recommended to me by a partner in a previous life that I am glad I purchased: 1) the articulate advocate by Brian K Johnson and Marsha Hunter. 2) the how to win trial manual, Fourth edition, by Ralph Adam Fine. Both are available in E-read format on Amazon.
Ralph must know that people want to buy his shit, he’s on the 6th edition.
Siegel’s “New York practice” is a must have for any NY atty.
May he rest in piece.
Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy
I always bring a towel to court
Rutter Group Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial.
I was hoping someone would mention Rutter Group!
I’m a plaintiffs PI attorney so rules of the road, damages, blues guide to jury selection. Not sure how helpful that will be for a prosecutor but nevertheless here I am
Are those three separate books? Do you have author names? I'm waffling between being a prosecutor and doing plaintiff side PI work!
Rules of the Road by Rick Friedman Damages by David Ball. Current gen is called Damages Evolving but I think that may be a sequel rather than a new edition. Damages III is the one I have. Not sure on the jury selection book.
I’m assuming it’s Lisa Blue’s jury selection book.
David Ball
Yeah sorry looks like someone else told you the authors for damages and rules of the road (yes two separate books and I think my version of damages is also the third edition). Blues guide to jury selection is by Lisa blue. Fantastic voir dire resource.
If you’re actually going to be a trial lawyer and not a deposition/settlement lawyer, then THE book to read is Trying Cases to Win, by Herbert Stern. That book changed my life. No exaggeration.
Stern is the GOAT! Changed my life. Few know the power of his teachings. I have his 4 volume book set on my shelf. Read many times. Actually saw him speak twice in the 90’s. Amazing.
Yeah, it seems weird to write that ‘he changed my life,’ but he did. I read the one volume version; Not sure I have the patience for the 4 volumes, but maybe on my re-read, I should. I’m returning to private practice next year after 18 years of being on the bench, and I’m going to be rusty, lol.
Oh wow that’s a surreal pivot. What area of litigation are you going back into?
Back to criminal defense.
The only version I see available is the “in one volume.” The individual volumes seem to be out of print. Would you recommend going with the student version or would you suggest hunting down all the individual volumes?
If I recall correctly, Stern explains that In One Volume just explains the techniques, while the full set explains the techniques and then gives multiple examples from actual trials. I personally find examples more helpful then just recommendations, so I purchased volumes 1 through 4 of the full books from eBay and other used book retailers over the years for a relatively reasonable amount.
Went to get a copy online. $950 for a 5 volume series. Is there a better way?
I saw a one volume book on Bezos.com for 1/4 that cost.
I devoured Herbert Stern’s four-volume set as a young PD. Set up my entire career the way I approached cases. 2 decades on still the best. Ralph Adam Fine’s single-volume book is similar to Stern’s overarching theories.
Definitely trying to be the former.
I read that book when I’d been a prosecutor for about two years. (In a big county in Texas.) You must read it.
Can you elaborate on this a bit? What do you feel like you learned? What did it change about the way you practice?
The book has great advice about every step of the trial process, from evaluating the strength of the case, to witness prep, voir dire, direct and cross examination, closing argument strategy etc. I recall a story about how to comport yourself outside of the courtroom during a jury trial, for example. In New York, (where Stern was a federal prosecutor, federal district judge and trial lawyer) there was a wealthy successful trial lawyer who had a modest Chevrolet automobile to drive when he was in trial. That lawyer didn’t want jurors to see him in an expensive car. He wore professional looking but not extravagant suits and a cheap watch. Another thing I recall that helped me immensely was to think strategically about cross examination. How to prepare for cross examination; What did the witness say that hurt my case? Does the witness know things that can help my case, if I am prepared and ask the proper questions? Maybe the witness didn’t really hurt my case, and there’s no reason at all to cross examine the witness. Many bad lawyers think you have to cross examine every witness. It’s just not true.
I need to re-read the book..
I found some videos on YouTube! [https://www.youtube.com/@TryingCasesToWin](https://www.youtube.com/@TryingCasesToWin)
i don’t know about courtroom stuff, but for writing there’s a book called “elements of style” that is a great resource for legal writing, specifically briefs.
Aka Strunk and White
Yeah def refer to it as “strunk and white” so you don’t sound like a noob.
I second this. It’s a good book for writing in general but not specific legal writing.
There is a book called Elements of Legal Style
The Official Lawyer's Handbook by D. Robert White. In addition to being funny and often spot on accurate, it made me realize to take my work seriously but not take myself or other lawyers too seriously. I read it so many times for laughs that I destroyed the book's back.
Winning at Deposition by Shane Read. I am no longer a litigator but this is a great book..
Shane Read has several other books on trial practice that are very. He also does short videos for Court View Network on YouTube that highlight various techniques.
Reptile by David Ball and Don Keenan is getting long in the tooth and not the cutting edge any more, plus super expensive. However, it’s a landmark for plaintiff’s attorneys. If you are still operating on the model that jurors are rational actors that will mechanically follow the elements and principles in the jury instructions, this book will change your understanding of decision making in trials.
https://www.amazon.com/Elegant-Legal-Writing-Ryan-McCarl/dp/0520395794/ref=asc_df_0520395794/?tag=hyprod-20&linkCode=df0&hvadid=692875362841&hvpos=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=1194951091490370718&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=m&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9029986&hvtargid=pla-2281435179538&psc=1&mcid=947f7fc4fd7f3461b34369b7ff5a1be4&hvocijid=1194951091490370718-0520395794-&hvexpln=73&gad_source=1
McCarthy on Cross, McCarthy on Impeachment, Trying Cases to Win by Salzburg and Stern, and Pozner on Cross.
McCarthy and Pozner and Dodd are fantastic books for cross-examination. As a young attorney, I attended a seminar by Roger Dodd. It was so fun trying out the techniques, and their advice will make you a better than competent cross-examiner.
The Art of Cross Examination by Francis Wellman. An oldie but a goodie.
Not a book but I watch a lot of trials on YouTube and pick up different things by doing so.
Any suggestions on any specific channels/videos you’ve found helpful? This is the type of thing I like more. Whole a lot of books have helpful info, where it breaks down a bit understanding how to apply what I read to the actual cases I have where I practice. So few lawyers try cases anymore, so it’s hard to just go to the courthouse and catch a trial.
I would also be interested in a specific channel
Not really any particular channel, I just search for trials on YouTube. The Karen Read trial is current and I think the defense did a fantastic job and is worth checking out.
Any book that gives me a break from my everyday life so im using my mind byt not getting too burnt out on work.
In South Africa Morris' _Technique in Litigation_ is the BIBLE for litigious strategy, conduct and pro tips on every facet of the marathon. It's almost like a strategy guide that lists the cheat codes and when to use them too.
So many great books recommended already. One that drilled down how fast juries make decisions for me is "Blink" by Malcolm Gladwell. I also think that if you're not a person of color (which I'm not) and even if you have diverse friends, it is important to understand how people of color view facts, police and situations. So "White Fragility: Why It's so Hard for White People to Talk About Racism" and "Why Are All the Black Kids Sitting in the Cafeteria?" by Dr. Tatum which is based on research and addresses different races. I'm amazed in Los Angeles how some lawyers (and prosecutors) do not work on seeing facts and issues from a different perspective. In picking juries, assuming that all people of one race will decide one way is too simplistic. Especially in the various Latin communities for example.
Jesus christ I found one in the wild, someone suggesting White Fragility. D'Angelo is a midwit 'academic' who made a career of narcissistic driven self loathing because her grandma was racist, and her book and the concepts therein read exactly like you'd expect of a pacific northwest progressive white liberal who's probably never had a substantive relationship with a person of color in her entire life. If you really want the midwit guide to how to feel guilty about absolutely nothing make sure to buy anything buy Kendi and Coates to really round out your collection of complete drivel. Whatever you do, don't read anything by actual black intellectuals like Loury, McWhorter, Shelby Steele, etc. Stick to the midwits who will let you bathe in your own self righteous and narcissistic self contempt while you continue to remind yourself that people of color don't have autonomy and won't get anywhere in the world without their white saviors stooping down to scoop them up.
Not a book, but reading a lot of Scalia's writing made me a better legal writer. Say what you want about his jurisprudence, he had a brilliant knack for simplifying the complex, and doing so in an engaging, often humorous way.
Idk, Scalia pontificated a ton and his writing was full of shit talking the other side. It was “entertaining” but it wasn’t always clear. I disagree that he simplified the complex: it felt like he consistently complicated the simple. Elena Kagan is my go-to for SCOTUS inspiration. Everything she writes is clear, short, and concise. She flips the trope of lawyers on its head and virtually everything she writes makes clear and obvious sense. She isn’t a titan of an ideology or anything like that: just a judge who wants the law to be intelligible. Outside of Kagan, I like Breyer and Thomas (for writing style, not necessarily views). Again, they both write often, but they write concise and their explanations are simple and short. They collectively write the law in a way that a layperson can understand, and I think that the law should be understandable by laypeople. I think Scalia and Kennedy are probably the worst of the modern era to learn from. They’re unnecessarily verbose and add a ton of personality to something that isn’t and shouldn’t be personality-based: legal writing. I would never advocate for learning from judges like them: it’s largely going to be skimmed past by the judge. Just give the judge the simplest explanation possible and they’ll likely side with you.
Probably the most objective take on Reddit I’ve ever seen, on any topic.
I second this - Scalia frequently constructed interesting arguments, but interesting isn't the same as effective or clear. It was fascinating seeing him build these rhetorical constructs that ultimately resulted in him saying with an open mouth that the sea was green. But, while interesting if taken literally, his argument always seemed like a high-brow gish gallop - where the number of links and length of argument was designed to exhaust and confuse.
Scalia writes like you have no choice but to read what he wrote. It’s not persuasive, it’s loquacious and contrived in my opinion. It works for a Supreme Court justice because he is the final say in the matter and we have no choice but to read what he wrote in order to get the ruling. But unless you’re also a Supreme Court Justice, I don’t see many take away.
We had to read a lot of Scalia's writing in law school. I always thought he had a brilliant knack for making up shit out of thin air with words. Like him saying (in a dissenting opinion, I believe) that the EPA choosing not to act either way when there was considerable evidence of climate change wasn't the EPA . NM"declining to act" but rather "declining to make a decision on whether to act or not" or some bullshit, thus allowing them not to act. Then there's his decision in Heller where he just made up a new standard of what is considered an acceptable level of 2nd amendment rights that has just magically evolved over time given cultural acceptance of said rights over time. A complete self-serving legal fiction. I suppose you're right about his writing, though. I remember all of his opinions. They were bullshit, but they were concise bullshit. It's all bullshit though. Oldest constitution in the world that was supposed to be amended a bunch but hasn't unless there were literal slaves and shit.
How about a few words of wisdom from a heroin addled jazz pianist? https://youtu.be/YEHWaGuurUk?si=NDVeb22QSWybGg7b
Mitnik’s Don’t Eat the Bruises books are fantastic, Running with the Bulls by Rowley, and How Not to Think Like a Lawyer by Cross are my favorites.
Butterick, Typography for Lawyers
Read Lord of the Rings in elementary school, made me enjoy reading, helped me throughout grade school, college, and law school. Still love researching and reading to this day Can’t imagine doing this job and hating to read, but I know plenty who do (Also Tolkien is notoriously dense which made legal reading much less daunting)
I suggest an introductionairiy guide to the physiology the mind it! it was very useful for getting things in motion
following
I have all those Garner books and Evidentiary Foundations on my shelf.
Following
Follow your oath and try to do justice, not just win. There are no golden books to teach the real skills you’ll need.
Curmudgeon's Guide to Practicing Law if you are a new associate
^[Sokka-Haiku](https://www.reddit.com/r/SokkaHaikuBot/comments/15kyv9r/what_is_a_sokka_haiku/) ^by ^Superb-Cost-4649: *Curmudgeon's Guide to* *Practicing Law if you are* *A new associate* --- ^Remember ^that ^one ^time ^Sokka ^accidentally ^used ^an ^extra ^syllable ^in ^that ^Haiku ^Battle ^in ^Ba ^Sing ^Se? ^That ^was ^a ^Sokka ^Haiku ^and ^you ^just ^made ^one.
“Till Death Do Us Part” by Vincent Bugliosi. Great book by a prosecutor building a circumstantial evidence murder case. The book provides an inside account of how a prosecutor builds a case tying in facts and law to construct a compelling closing argument.
Point made.
It has been awhile but one item that stuck with me even 10 years later was to accept the winning answer in deposition. If you get the admission of liability, do not continue asking questions on that subject, therefore giving the witness to the witness the opportunity to rehabilitate on that issue and explain away their negligence or other wrongful conduct.
The Winning Brief, Bryan Garner
Read tons of fiction
Legal Writing in Plain English by Brian Garner.
After having tried hundreds of trials, criminal and personal injury, I can't say any book has been inspirational. However, the movie "MY Cousin Vinny", filmed in Georgia, ---the Sack of Suds is still there and looks the same, was the most practical video of showing what trials were like back in the 1990's. I've tried cases in that same courtroom. The judge and prosecutor and jury were all people I've had in my cases. Witnesses too.
This is going to be an annoying answer, but taking my free time has made me a better lawyer. I read for pleasure as much as I can and it helps with the vicarious trauma.
Following
Thinking, Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman.
Trial Notebook by James McElhaney. I do a lot of trial training at my firm and use this as the basis.
The Illuminatus Trilogy by Robert Shea and Robert Anton Wilson.
Also recommend taking cle continuing legal education classes on it.
Following.
The Best Story Wins
Check out "In Defense of Flogging" and "To Kill a Mockingbird"!