Yeah, legal writing runs contrary to everything I learned in HS and undergrad. Training in English and History was about the worst thing I could have done in terms of being succinct. English profs encouraged use of a varied vocabulary whereas my legal writing prof would circle any SAT level word with TCW (throat clearing word) in the margin. We had a guy in my legal writing section with a Ph.D in English and who had taught high school English and Latin for a few years. He managed to miss out on the CALI both semesters.
That's true, but read the SCOTUS briefs. Now those are very well-written. I don't think it matters how the Justices write; it's the people who convince the Justices to find for them who really know how to write. You taking Con Law II with Gey? I was in his Con Law I class and he's awesome.
Lincoln brings up a good point.I recall some professor/author, in talking about the benefits law review, noting that it is the couth way to publicly let everyone know that you were at the top of your law class. For example, you would sound like an ENORMOUS d-bag if you mentioned "top 20% of my class" in conversation (though I would not put it past some people on this board to do that). But if you casually mention law review, everyone knows you were near the top and/or were a great writer.
Nah. I think I might throw up if I was in Gey's class. He's waaaaay too liberal for me. I'm waiting until Spring and will take Stern for Con Law II. From what I've heard, Gey doesn't even bother to hide what his Political affiliation is. I took Stern for Con Law I, and after a whole semester I have no idea if he's a Republican, Democrat or Martian. Which is a good thing.