An Introduction to Legal Writing for Entering Law Students

Know Your Three C's and the Rule of Three

Almost half of all law school applicants are drawn from the social sciences (48.3 percent), followed by the arts and humanities (20.5 percent), business and management (15.7 percent), and STEM (6.6 percent) (among a few others).[1] Entering law school, most students expect to draw upon writing skills developed from their undergraduate careers. While many skills developed from undergraduate writing assignments will be helpful in law school, transitioning to legal writing presents many challenges.[2] Academic writing as an undergraduate often emphasizes theoretical exploration and argumentation, while legal writing focuses on precision, clarity, and applying laws to specific facts.[3] Particularly, legal writing involves mastering a complex combination of analytical thinking, precise language, and specific formatting that differs significantly from typical undergraduate writing styles.[4]

In comparing academic writing with legal writing, there are three key differences to note. First, there is the writer-reader relationship.[5] At the undergraduate level, the academic writer is a novice, writing for an expert in a subject.[6] In the legal setting, the writer generally knows more about the specific subject matter, attempts to educate the reader on a subject, and hopes to persuade the reader towards the writer’s point of view.[7] Second, the undergraduate conducts an extensive amount of research to demonstrate how much work was done to produce the academic document.[8] When creating a legal document, attorneys focus on presenting conclusions and supporting rationales instead of trying to include every part of the legal research process. Third, the lengths of legal documents  generally differ from those of materials produced during the academic writing process. Often, it appears “like undergrad writers are getting ‘paid’ by the word.”[9] In the legal realm, brevity speaks volumes, as judges carry heavy dockets, and time is often of the essence.[10] Indeed, many documents are called “briefs” for a reason.[11]

Becoming an effective legal writer requires consideration of the three “C’s”: clarity, concision, and coherence.[12] To ensure clarity, write in a clear and simple manner, avoiding long sentences and legal jargon[13] so the message is easily understood.[14] Concision requires focusing on relevant issues, steering clear of irrelevant topics that could weaken analysis.[15] Effective writing demands careful planning, a logical organization of ideas, and a thorough review to ensure coherence.[16] By emphasizing lucidity, brevity, and unity by writing simply, concentrating on relevant issues, and logically structuring ideas, the entering law student will become an effective legal writer. Importantly, becoming an effective legal writer requires regular practice of the craft.

Shifting from the three key differences in academic writing to legal writing and the three C's, a quick look at omne trium perfectum follows. Aristotle used the concept of three as perfection in his work Rhetoric to express that ideas presented in groups of three are more effective and memorable, enhancing clarity and persuasion in communication.[17] Simply stated, Aristotle explained that good stories, particularly tragedies, have a beginning, middle, and end.[18] Moreover, the rule of three can be applied to an overall thematic structure, the flow of sentences, and legal analysis. In The Great Gatsby, F. Scott Fitzgerald wrote about the illusion and failure of the American Dream; the corrosive nature of wealth and social class; and the impossibility of reliving the past.[19] Justice Brandeis used the rule of three to powerful effect in this sentence: “The right of free speech, the right to teach and the right of assembly are, of course, fundamental rights.”[20] Incorporating this approach in the legal setting helps provide a complete and logical flow of information that leads the reader to the desired conclusion.

In practice, the rule of three provides an organized framework for a compelling legal argument. As shown in the following example, an attorney can use the rule of three as an organizational structure to argue that the defendant defamed the plaintiff. First, the defamatory statements are false. Second, these statements severely damaged the plaintiff’s reputation and standing within his professional community. Third, the defamatory remarks caused the plaintiff to suffer significant, ongoing, and irreversible harm, both economic and reputational.[21]

In building on the power of the rule of three to enhance legal writing, it is essential to explore how clarity, conciseness, and coherence are further emphasized through the principles practiced by influential legal figures (and others). Judge Richard Posner[22] sought “to write clearly, concisely, candidly, concretely, and freshly.”[23] Ultimately, he strove for clarity in his judicial opinions by minimizing unnecessary details, legal jargon, and formal structures, opting instead for direct, unembellished expression.[24] Judge Posner’s writing style exemplifies clarity, conciseness, and coherence through his use of straightforward language, brevity, and a structured approach that often incorporates the rule of three for greater emphasis and retention.

As a commentary on society, the rule of three can strategically emphasize key points and create a powerful, memorable effect. In one case (a self-proclaimed public service announcement with guitars), The Clash (a.k.a. “the only band that matters”) presented three satirical “rights” that expose social inequalities, employing repetition and triplets of ideas throughout the lyrics for emphasis. In their song "Know Your Rights," the band enumerated three rights: (1) the right not to be killed (subject to exceptions), (2) the right to food money (subject to conditions), and (3) the right to free speech (so “long as you’re not dumb enough to actually try it”). The deliberate use of the number three drives home the power, importance, and endurability of the band’s critique.

Returning to entering law students, mastering legal writing requires an understanding of its unique demands through the lens of clarity, conciseness, and coherence while harnessing the persuasive power of the three C’s to craft compelling arguments that resonate with both legal professionals and broader audiences. While the shift from academic to legal writing presents distinct challenges, understanding the core differences and diligently cultivating clarity, conciseness, and coherence are foundational. Embrace the three C's and consider the strategic power of the rule of three to develop a voice. By thoughtfully structuring legal arguments, the entering student will evolve into an effective legal writer with the power to educate, advocate, and make a meaningful impact within the legal profession.

[1] Karen Sloan, College students with these majors crush the LSAT, Reuters (June 4, 2024), https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/college-students-with-these-majors-crush-lsat-end-logic-games-may-change-that-2024-06-04/ (drawing from 2023 data from the Law School Admissions Council). As far as majors with strong writing reputations, 2022 data from LSAC provided the law school acceptance rates for the following majors: history (77.5 percent), economics (76 percent), English (74 percent), and political science (73 percent). The Best Pre-Law Majors, FindLaw, https://www.findlaw.com/legal/law-students/pre-law/the-best-pre-law-majors.html (Feb. 26, 2025).

[2] Anne Enquist, Talking to Students About the Differences between Undergraduate Writing and Legal Writing, 13 Persps.: Teaching Legal Rsch. & Writing 77, 104 (2005) (including such skills as planning, time management, outlining, revising, editing, and proofreading).

[3] Id. at 104–05. See also Terrill Pollman & Judith M. Stinson, Examples & Explanations for Legal Writing 9–10 (4th ed. 2024).

[4] Pollman & Stinson, supra note 3, at 9–10.

[5] Enquist, supra note 2, at 104.

[6] Id.

[7] Id.

[8] Id. at 104–05.

[9] Id. at 105.

[10] Id.

[11] Consult court rules (especially local rules) for page limits; the Northern District of Illinois limits briefs to fifteen pages. N.D. Ill. R. 7.1.

[12] Tyler Coulson, Three Cs of Legal Writing . . . and One T, Law School Toolbox (Nov. 25, 2020), https://lawschooltoolbox.com/three-cs-of-legal-writingand-one-t/.

[13] Generally, avoid legalese. Jargon includes the words herein, hereinafter, therein, thereof, and whereof. Some words or phrases amount to meaningless ritualistic phrases like "Witnesseth," "Come now before the Court," and "To all parties and their attorneys of record." Also, ditch Latin whenever possible; swap arguendo for even if, de facto for in practice, and res judicata for claim preclusion. Sometimes, Latin should be used in the case of a legal term of art like res ipsa loquitur (if you are reading this footnote, you can crack open Black's Law Dictionary now).

[14] Id.

[15] Id.

[16] Id.

[17] Aristotle, Rhetoric passim (Infomotions, Inc. ed. 2000).

[18] The Poetics of Aristotle 89 (S.H. Butcher ed., Harv. Coll. Libr. 3d ed. 1902).

[19] F. Scott Fitzgerald, The Great Gatsby (Oldcastle Books Ltd. ed. 2020).

[20] Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357, 373 (1927) (Brandeis, J., concurring).

[21] See Adam Lamparello, The Power of the Rule of Three, Appellate Advocacy Blog (Dec. 26, 2020), https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/appellate_advocacy/2020/12/the-power-of-the-rule-of-three.html#google_vignette (providing several examples of the rule of three in action in several contexts).

[22] Judge Richard A. Posner served on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit from 1981 to 2017. Judge Posner wrote more than 2,500 published judicial opinions, as well as numerous scholarly books and articles. Richard A. Posner, The Atlantic, https://www.theatlantic.com/author/richard-a-posner/ (last visited Apr. 23, 2025) (emphasis added).

[23] Richard A. Posner, How I Write, 4 Scribes J. Legal Writing 45, 46 (1993).

[24] Id. at 46–47.