How much does clerking improve your writing ability? Forum

[Anonymous User]

Just started a new job in Big fed.

Spent 2-3 years in big law in v20 DC before this. Lately, I've been feeling self conscious about my writing ability because folks have been editing my briefs/motions heavily.

I never clerked for a judge so I'm thinking this is where everyone else got so good at writing. Any thoughts?

[jd20132013]

you've got a few unsupported premises in there, one of which is that heavy edits actually signify they're making the piece better

That said clerking does improve your writing as a general matter although it will depend on the judge and level

[bruinfan10]

clerking, especially for a court of appeals judge, improves your writing immensely (provided you're actually reading Garner, etc., and intentionally trying to get better) for the simple reason that you have a tremendous amount of time available to practice your writing.

Writing's all you do, and unless your judge artificially puts pressure on you because he or she is bad at time management or just an unpleasant sociopat (e.g. Kozinski), the time pressure on the COA is much less than at a district court or biglaw job. You can also practice writing at a chill d.ct job, (maybe not so much in cd cal), but even at a busy district court, all that real writing experience will help.

since i've started in biglaw post a couple of clerkships, the demands on my time are such that I can't cross-check my writing against Bryan Garner, the Chicago Manual, etc, as much---really just going on my prior training and experience at this point.

All that said, 90% of attorneys are close to god-awful writers, biglaw included, so I highly doubt the edits you're getting are more than someone trying to pretend they're engaged in the project. i wouldn't read too much into it.

[Anonymous User]

you've got a few unsupported premises in there, one of which is that heavy edits actually signify they're making the piece better

That said clerking does improve your writing as a general matter although it will depend on the judge and level

That's exactly my point. I'm not sure (and I'm feeling self conscious) if I'm being edited bc of writing style differences or because the editors are actually better writers.

[jbagelboy]

Improves *legal* writing, yes. Absolutely.

[Anonymous User]

Yes, but how much does it improve?

[Anonymous User]

Just started a new job in Big fed.

Spent 2-3 years in big law in v20 DC before this. Lately, I've been feeling self conscious about my writing ability because folks have been editing my briefs/motions heavily.

I never clerked for a judge so I'm thinking this is where everyone else got so good at writing. Any thoughts?

I am former state appellate clerk now working in big fed. In my experience, "heavy editing" does not always reflect or signify poor writing quality (unless, of course, you are making obviously sloppy grammatical errors or incorrect statements of law/facts). Many times, I think, it may indicate the opposite. When I don't have to worry about surface-level writing errors I can edit a draft for subtleties like tone, audience, scope, structure, etc. At least in my office, which may be more collaborative than others, it is expected that a brief or motion will go through several drafts and no one really takes the redlining process personally because the process always produces a better product. I guess, consider the nature of the edits before beating yourself up about it.