I love good writing, and I always advocate for strong legal writing. But...how many cases do you suppose are wrongly decided because of this kind of skillful bullshitting? 
https://twitter.com/sarahjeong/status/1400972255538999302 …
-
Fewer than you'd think, mostly because trial judges don't read 90% of what's filed. They simply don't have time. And they've said so: Soooo many times I've heard judges say (to others) "Counsel, I didn't have time to read your papers. Can you give me the Reader's Digest version?"
A lot of bad decisions are based on verbal bullshitting though. It's a lot easier to sneak in irrelevant, unsubstantiated "facts" orally. Try making an oral objection on evidentiary grounds at a motion hearing; it almost never works.
-
-
Judges are swayed by good stories delivered with passion and conviction, especially when they have only moments to make a decision - as is often true in trial court hearings in California, where they've got 40 motions on their 9-10am calendar. Gladwell would kick ass.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.