Subscribe
Share
Share
Embed
Deep conversations with underrated lawyers.
This is Horum with Horum's Quorum. My guest today is Ryan McCarroll. Ryan's a founding partner at Rush and McCarroll and the author of Elegant Legal Writing. Now when I saw this book came out, I said to myself, another book on legal writing. But after reading it, I was impressed, and I wanted to sit down with the author to learn more.
Khurram Naik:Here's Ryan. Ryan, it's great to sit down with you and talk, although you're standing, which I admire. Yeah. I just I'm really excited to to talk about your book and talk about your story.
Ryan McCarl:Thank you for having me.
Khurram Naik:So your book we're sitting out here because you published a book, and it's called Elegant Legal Writing. What do you mean by elegant? What's elegant?
Ryan McCarl:So the the word elegance in in the sense that I'm using it refers to tasteful simplicity in the choice and arrangement of words. I think that's a that's a a quote that I have in in the introduction from the Oxford English Dictionary. I think, accurately describes what I'm going for in legal writing, what I recommend. What I what I rec what I recommend is is in line with what, legal writing gurus and professors have taught for decades in terms of writing in plain language, disposing of unnecessary jargon and legalese, and that's kind of the simplicity part, and prioritizing clarity and readability. But I also believe that once those values are satisfied, you can also there there's you should also think about aesthetic considerations because, one of the constraints that judges face in addition to limited time and mental energy is motivation and attention span, just like the rest of us face here in the digital age.
Ryan McCarl:So it's important, if you can make your writing enjoyable to read by following good aesthetic practices and just paying a little bit more attention to considerations typically not considered, like pacing and writing in an engaging way and ensuring that the brief is really has a forward movement effect in terms of how its how its prose reads, that will make it more likely that the judge make prioritizes reading your brief, actually reads it, sort of skims it, and then actually completes it, and it'll help your message get through. The judge has to has to first read your brief to some extent and then understand your argument in order to be to to have the possibility of being moved to accept it.
Khurram Naik:Mhmm. Are there any litigators that you find to be consistently to be elegant writers?
Ryan McCarl:Yeah. I think I I I really have always loved Roski Brumman's book Point Made, which which I've read and and listened to many times since since since I was in law school. It's filled with great examples of appellate litigators who who use who write in a way that's lucid and engaging. I've found the the, you know, the the US solicitor general's office that does a lot of supreme court advocacy, traditionally has been at the forefront of good legal writing practices and oral advocacy practices. And I also find that litigators at, you know, top firms, elite firms, Gibson Dunn, for example, tend to use, tend to use, best practices as far as, you know, focusing on plain language and writing writing briefs that show a greater attention to the nuances of language than you would find, in, you know, in in sort of more more typical, firms.
Ryan McCarl:So I I don't have any specific specific litigators who I tout as writing one way or the other, but I but when I when I search for good examples, you know, sometimes I get them from my own firm's briefs, Rushing, McCarroll, LLP. But if I'm looking for examples for the book or for teaching, I will often go to Lexis or Westlaw into the research tools and search for whatever procedural posture that I'm interested in, and then couple it with the name of a, you know, of a elite firm and put through them until I can pretty quickly identify as an example of writing that's not not turgid and unreadable, which is kind of the norm in our profession.
Khurram Naik:Is there any subject matter of litigation that you tend to find the the practitioners in that space are particularly good writers?
Ryan McCarl:I would say that cop the constitutional litigation to some degree, although I don't I don't practice as much in in that area. But, the fact that a lot of cost writers that a lot of attorneys who focus on constitutional and appellate litigation are are writing appellate briefs and arguing at the appellate level. Sometimes they sometimes they they're they're a little bit more in tune with good legal storytelling practices, for example, and they write may write for courts that they they, that have very high standards expectations in terms of the the argument, and they kind of rise to the level of the competition when you're talking about, people that are arguing before the Supreme Court. So that would be that's the first the first example that come to mind come to comes to mind. And I would say that there's other areas of law where writing in a a loose and engaging way is especially a challenge.
Ryan McCarl:So that would involve that would those would include patent law, for example, both challenging to explain the facts about an invention if you don't have a science or technical background in the relevant area, and also any kind of area of law where it's developed in kind of a convoluted way or you're interpreting a convoluted statute or contract. I really relish the opportunity to write briefs in areas like that because of the challenge they pose. But it has to be understood that that stuff is hard to read inherently. It's substantively complex. So the advice that I give to attorneys is the more substantively complex the information that you're conveying, whether it's, you know, the area of law in general or the specific point you're making, the more you should really ensure that your sentences are syntactically simple and that your paragraphs are are short and focused and you've, you know, really ruthlessly weeded out any unnecessary complexity and detail because you wanna chart a path for the reader, the judge, through the relevant law rather than sort of adding complexity with language, which is more what typically occurs.
Ryan McCarl:Mhmm.
Khurram Naik:And you mentioned Ross Guberman earlier, and, so he he came into the training at my firm, I think it must have been ten years ago. I had a really positive impression of it. I don't really remember what points it took way incorporated in my practice. Again, this is, like, ten years ago. But, you know, I'd be curious to hear from you.
Khurram Naik:What are the you know, there's people like Ross Guberman. There's Brian Garner. I think those two of the bigger names in legal writing. What do you see as their key innovations or contributions? In what ways is your book a departure from their point of views?
Ryan McCarl:So I I've read, both of their work extensively and so many times, it's sort of, it's integrated into my my framework for thinking of, about writing for the most part. Ross Ross Grubman's book, Point Made, and then the later book he wrote about writing for judges, which which follows a similar tack, is the particular strength in my view is is his mining of, of good examples, like I mentioned earlier, and his deriving from those examples of sort of advocacy moves. So one of the first ones he talks about, for example, is he calls it, I believe, one fell swoop where you distinguish an entire line of precedents at once by finding the common thread that makes them distinguishable rather than going piecemeal through each case. And it's just those simple little touches that make that simplify an argument and simplify the problem space, you could say, for the judge and gives them a way to think, to think about the case in a way that aligns with what you how you want them to. So I I think I think that's sort of different project a little bit than what I have, done in Elegant Legal Writing where I focus more on there's there's obviously some overlap, but I focus on, first, prose mechanics, prose aesthetics, how to actually write concisely and and clearly, nuts and bolts of how to write good sentences and paragraphs and how to organize documents, followed by, followed by a few chapters on substance tips about substance of argumentation, substance abusing legal authority, how to write good fact sections.
Ryan McCarl:And then I I also dip into a few topics that aren't covered as much in most other books on legal writing, like writing productivity using using technology in advanced ways, and then legal typography and design of documents. So but the unifying theme of my work is that of elegant legal writing is that judges have cognitive constraints and time constraints that you know, the same ones that all readers face, but they're particularly acute for judges. So the what's important is to is to show the judge that you're going to be helpful and then make your point very quickly and then write your brief in a way that is that is is considerate of their time and their energy and that is designed to hold their attention and that is aesthetically pleasing experience right down to, you know, the font you choose. As for Brian Garner, Brian Garner, I've he's he's sort of the the traditional guru of the of the profession in in the recent decades, And I've read a lot of his books and learned a ton for him from him. I I I think that his he's done a great deal to make plain language principles the expectation and norm in elite legal writing.
Ryan McCarl:So that's kind of what I would say is is what I take to be his his one of his central contributions. He also is an expert in things like lexicography and and word usage. So his his his book, Modern English Usage, for example, is is on my shelf and frequently used, full of tabs. He just has gone into great depth kind of in a way that Ken Adams has done in contracts, in contract law. Brian Garner has done with legal language more generally, and I found that to be really, really helpful.
Ryan McCarl:Another thing about Brian Garner that I've that I've appreciate and have have built on a bit is his his challenge to the traditional hostility to footnotes in the legal profession. That was a very well entrenched practice in the legal tradition in in in litigation of avoiding footnotes and putting everything in the main text on on kind of various theories that judges don't like footnotes or whatever other reason. And Brian Garner did a lot to move the profession away from that by saying, well, there shouldn't be substantive footnotes, but there but at least we should put reference material in footnotes. I actually go further than that in my book, and I I discuss that in a section on footnotes when I cover document design. But I I believe that actually, there's no real good reason for for the patrician's hostility footnotes, and that the footnotes are a great way to increase visual variety in a brief, but more importantly, to help signal at a glance to the judge what are the most important parts of this brief.
Ryan McCarl:So in case the judge has to read it quickly or only reads it once, and, you know, is only gonna devote fifteen, twenty minutes to it, what do you need to convey to the judge versus what is secondary, whether that's reference material or whether it's, an argument you're making not to just to avoid waiver or a response to a kind of an insignificant contention? In my view, quite a few of that, of those, there there's quite a few use cases for for footnotes that that fit with the basic principle of using design to communicate what important what is most important for the judge to to to read and understand. Mhmm.
Khurram Naik:What what is the just at a high level, I'll mention the the parts of the book. You've got style, which includes aspects like concision, plain language, tone and professionalism, and you have substance, which includes aspects like using legal authority, legal storytelling, and process, which is the mental game of writing, writing with technology. So style, substance, and process. What's in the what in this book or or or is there a specific point that you think is important that you think that people are most likely to to disagree with?
Ryan McCarl:Well, the footnote's one, of course, is is a is is a is a definitely a conversation starter because because it's go it goes further than other than other legal writing experts have and certainly further than most most litigators do. But I think as with, you know, using plain language in general and getting avoiding legalese, I think you start you see if you look closely at how the top advocates, you know, people who argue frequently before the Supreme Court, people, you know, who who who get paid $2,000 an hour at places like like, Wilmer Hale or Gibson Dunn, how are they writing? And you'll find a lot of footnotes just like you'll find a lot of writing that's closer to, for example, to a New Yorker article than to a traditional legal filing. And so I think that, you know, my take on the footnotes is is is, still controversial because no one's kind of come out and said it to my knowledge and said, go for it. You know, every other academic field uses it without a problem, and it's an obstacle to readability to put to put, you know, reference information or asides in the main text on the same footing from a design perspective as the core points.
Ryan McCarl:But, you know, but it is different than what people have said before, so it gets a lot of attention. Another area another, you know, point I make in there on the chapter about briefs and motions is that I've really I challenge the Iraq and Kuyaq paradigms and similar argument organization paradigms that that are still being taught to law students. And you often will see for example, on LinkedIn, you'll see a lot of people who who write about legal writing still kind of advocating just follow Iraq. And I don't I I just don't agree with with with those with that. I don't think those are actually that helpful a framework as to when you're whether for thinking about legal reasoning or thinking about how to organize an argument.
Ryan McCarl:I I find those to be oversimplified and, typically, to kind of miss the point of most arguments because if if it were just as straightforward as applying known rule to known facts, there wouldn't be a whole lot to argue about. So most of the meat of a of a contested legal argument in a in a hard case is going to be arguing about the nuances of what a rule means and how that interacts with the facts. And it's just not that helpful in my opinion to to kind of think I think that some people, when they when they think about IRAC or HRUEAC, they tend to kind of juxtapose the rule what they say is the rule versus what they say are the facts and say that, you know, together these support the conclusion. But everything within that interact everything within defining the rule and then defining it in light of the facts and mutually adjusting the fact the characterization of facts and the characterization of law, that's really all the meat of analysis. So I propose a different approach, which is which is to think about it more in terms of traditional informal logic and thinking about it as conclusions plus reasons.
Ryan McCarl:So you do lead with a conclusion, and then you support it with the reasons that that lead to the conclusion in in order of strength. And what is a reason? A reason in to accept a legal conclusion is typically a combination of kind of interweaved legal premises, which are rule statements and fact premises, which are which are the facts of the case.
Khurram Naik:Yeah. It makes a lot of sense. You know, I think about how it applied legal writing to other domains. So, you know, for instance, the first comes to mind is that I've got some short term rentals, and there's oftentimes when I need to interface with the the platforms or vendors or just there there's there's different stakeholders that need to reach out to to resolve an issue. And when I write for these people, I'm not you know, I'm using my legal writing skills, but I'm not, you're right, doing some sort of Iraq kind of style analysis.
Khurram Naik:It is much more like you're saying, like, here's conclusion, and then here's the inner leaf and fact and and rules. But I leave with the conclusion because I there's, like, a call to action. Hit. I need I'm looking for this outcome, and here's reasons why. And so I think that makes I think if you think practically about how you would persuade someone, not just like, hey.
Khurram Naik:This is what I was told to do to persuade someone. Just like, how would you, if you're trying to persuade someone, marshal not not only marshal authority, but also frame, I want this thing done for clarity so they know what you're looking for, you know, it would probably fall exactly what you're saying in that sort of order.
Ryan McCarl:Yes.
Khurram Naik:Let me ask you essentially.
Ryan McCarl:In the call to action
Khurram Naik:ahead.
Ryan McCarl:Oh, I'm sorry. So the the call to action analogy you made, I think, is actually quite helpful. You know, I I've I've dabbled a little bit in in in web design, user user experience, issues like that, both because I I I did have a a startup, a web startup a few years ago, but also just in in the course of of researching for Elegantly Writing, I did some some some dabbling in in design issues, just books about design, and to try to understand how design principles could be used to inform how we write briefs in a way that's gonna make them easier to read, help us get our messages across more clearly, and and more pleasant and enjoyable to read. And so the call to action idea from, you know, from web design and marketing is is to have a very clear ask. Right?
Ryan McCarl:Right? That that the reader doesn't whoever the reader of a web page, for example, doesn't have to look very hard or very far or wonder what you want because it's very clearly stated. I think that in law, the same exact principle applies. A judge you know, you're putting when you when you write a motion when you're when you're writing a motion or seeking legal relief, the first question the judge will have always is, what are you asking me to do? And what are you asking me to specifically hold versus both in terms of the the particular ruling and then, you know, the remedy?
Ryan McCarl:And then why is the next question that they have. Why should I why should I do that for you? And and why why are you right, and why is the opponent wrong? And that's, to me, follow the conclusions plus reasons paradigm that I mentioned earlier just follows that that logical structure of what a judge needs when they open the brief. They need to know what you are asking them to do, and then they need to know why.
Khurram Naik:Yes. That's good. And so, again, with this this style, substance, and process conception, what do you think is your competitive advantage as a writer?
Ryan McCarl:I I think that it's for me, it's it's the fact that I've been teaching for a long time at different levels. So before law school, I taught ninth grade and tenth grade history. And, you know, now I teach sometimes teach law school advanced legal writing courses, teach CLEs. The book itself is an exercise in teaching, as is my blog, elegantlegalwriting.com. And, that's part of it, is thinking about how to reach, how to reach, you know, learners who might be tuned out or who might be skeptical of the importance of this topic, and, you know, or who may not have yet the complete sort of framework and mental schema for thinking through a problem that that you have as the teacher or the writer.
Ryan McCarl:So I think that's part of it, is is is thinking about how to motivate how to motivate somebody to want to read what you say, and then how to quickly convey the essential information in a way that they learning is not such a we don't we're not depending on the reader's self motivation, really. We're we're we're we're help we're we're helping them learn almost inadvertently, you know, because you you get you get their attention, and you quickly convey what you need to convey, while addressing any problems or any any potential, you know, lapses in comprehension as early as possible. So that's kind of part of it. And I think the other part of it is is that I'm just I love language and and love, this lifelong reader and writer. And I've taken creative writing workshops, written parts of a memoir, for example, done a lot of done a lot of workshops and a lot of reading about general composition and fiction writing, poetry writing.
Ryan McCarl:I took I actually took poetry workshops at the University of Chicago when I was at in law school for credit, which was pretty cool. And I that sort of being highly attuned to language and then thinking about how to write for aesthetic reasons that are separate from legal making legal arguments. I think that that's there's a lot of wisdom in in those sources, in in books about general composition, in fiction workshops, and so on that that it doesn't take a whole lot of imagination to apply them to your legal writing and allow it allow some of those techniques about pacing, rhythm, emphasis, and so on to shape the way you you communicate your message. Aesthetics are always gonna be secondary to substance in legal writing, but usually, they I argue in the book, Elegant Legal Writing, that they're more intertwined than people think, and that, yeah, and that usually you can you can convey difficult ideas in a way that is still pleasant to read, more aligned with what you'd read again in, like, The New Yorker or some other general nonfiction.
Khurram Naik:Mhmm. What's a nonfiction writer that's influenced you the most?
Ryan McCarl:Oh, that's a Let me clarify.
Khurram Naik:What influenced your writing the most, I should clarify? Because, of course, the nonfiction writer influenced some aspects of your life. But in terms of how you think you approach writing, which nonfiction writer you think has influenced you the most?
Ryan McCarl:Well, there is some that have written about writing itself, which I mentioned in the in the, you know, the resources of of the book, like Jacques Barzun and Joseph Williams are good examples of that. But setting setting that aside in terms of and thinking about not more general nonfiction writers, I would say, I think, actually, it's it's it's to some degree, honestly, older, it's kind of, quote, unquote, public intellectual writers, like these great essayists of the past. You know, more recently, you might include Christopher Hitchens as kind of a more recent example. But going back further, people like H. L.
Ryan McCarl:Mencken, you know, this very caustic kind of savage writer from the nineteen twenties, nineteen thirties, you know, I think I wouldn't necessarily emulate his tone or misanthropy, but I would say his his way his prose his way of crafting prose is phenomenal. C. S. Lewis is another example of somebody who writes in a very lucid and engaging way. George Orwell is another example in his in his essays.
Ryan McCarl:Those and then and then in terms of fiction, John Cheaver John Cheaver's fiction short stories, also very easy to read, lucid, gorgeous prose. And I I could probably come up with a quite a quite a few others, but there's there's I I really just appreciate artful artful prose such as that you find in in the great kind of modern modern essayists from the past couple centuries.
Khurram Naik:You know? And I really value that not only you're drawing from from that serious influence, but you're also drawing from marketing and more content well, not necessarily contemporary. You know, I think these principles of of copywriting are, they've endured a lot, and some of the most skilled writers on the Internet today cite to what they've learned from copywriters from, you know, fifty, eighty years ago, or people like, say, David Ogilvy. When you read his works, He is a very clear writer and very persuasive as well. And so I think there's a lot to learn from both high brow and, you know, if you wanna call it low brow sources about persuasion and clarity.
Ryan McCarl:I do I do have Ogilvy on advertising somewhere on my on my bookshelf, you know, as well as I said, like, books on graphic design. And, yeah, absolutely, the the basic the the you should take wisdom wherever you find it. And the core principles of good design, good aesthetics, good pros, there is just a major shared shared core of of wisdom and purpose. And the people who are working on, you know, UX and marketing and design today, although quite different in terms of aims, audience, you know, from the some of the writers I mentioned, they have they're facing a a challenge that is really similar to that that that litigators face, which is which is how do you reach an audience that does not have time or necessarily inclination to to listen to you? How do you break through that noise?
Ryan McCarl:Whether with all the distractions of modern technology, all the other things that a consumer might be doing instead of paying attention to your ad, It's a bit of a dark dark art sometimes in the in the in the in the world of marketing, but it's the same exact thing that trial lawyers have to do when you're dealing when you're trying to reach a judge who has, you know, anywhere from 200 to 1,200 or more active cases.
Khurram Naik:Mhmm. So you you've clearly been interested in writing for some time now. I'm sorry that you used the word clearly. I know you told me I shouldn't use that. But when did you decide that you wanted to write a book on legal writing?
Ryan McCarl:Well well, clearly, to be clear, is a an intensifier to bolster a conclusion, it doesn't provide backing. That's that's my issue with clearly. But as an as an adverb to describe a good pro style, I think it's just fine. When I decided to write a book about writing, I it was probably back in 2020 when I I was do I was doing a two year two year fellowship in AI law and policy on the faculty of the UCLA School of Law, and I was able to I don't remember exactly what spurred me to do it other than love of language, but I but I I I was able to convince the curriculum committee to allow me to teach an advanced legal writing course in which I designed from scratch. And in the course of developing that that curriculum and doing the research over the summer, just reading as many books on prose style in in in general design and legal writing and legal writing more specifically, In the course of doing that research and devy designing a pretty thorough curriculum to last an entire semester, and I tried to distill from all those sources that I that I had read and my own intuitions and experience what were the most helpful principles for for attorneys and law students to know?
Ryan McCarl:And ones that are usually oftentimes aligned with what stylists have said before because, you know, this is a craft, and there's a common core of shared writing advice on things like concision and plain language. But there's also a lot of practices that are just not the norm and a lot of concepts that that a lot of, you know, litigators just aren't really familiar with still, like things like thinking about emphasis, allocating emphasis in a sentence, you know, thinking about sentence logic, thinking about rhythm. These concepts sometimes are for are are only are maybe more familiar to to people who have studied, you know, taken, like, a creative writing course or two, but it's not covered in your typical 1L legal writing class. So I set out to try to distill the most helpful tips that I could convey to my students to help make them ready to write at an elite level. And the process of doing that, I generated something like 400 pages of, you know, of slideshows and and, you know, and and handouts and so on.
Ryan McCarl:And I was able and and that pretty naturally, once the course ended, led me to look at that storehouse of stuff I had created and and notes I'd taken and think about crafting into a book. Mhmm.
Khurram Naik:Was there, like, a moment, though, that you said, hey. You know what? I think I I think I can do this. I think I'm ready for this.
Ryan McCarl:Yeah. I I think back in early twenty twenty one, so that would be as shortly after I concluded that course. That's when I started the elegantlegalwriting.com blog and announced that I was gonna do it to write the book. You know, I and I've had many projects over the years that, you know, they always come and go. And I'd I've always my entire life wanted to write a book.
Ryan McCarl:I mean, ever since I was six years old probably or earlier, that was my main goal in life in some ways was to write books. And but it's it's a challenging endeavor. It's it takes it's it takes enormous focus and discipline to write if you're if you're trying to write a book through a traditional publishing method with a major publisher, it's it's just it takes years of trial and error of of conceptualizing drafting it conceptualizing it, drafting it, getting getting the proposal accepted, endless rounds of revision. It's just a major undertaking, and you have to have a pretty deep love for the subject and and a willingness to, you know, to to really put a lot into that. So I made sure that I was ready to make that commitment or as ready as I would ever be.
Ryan McCarl:And it worked out because I really found that in designing the course materials for the advanced writing course I taught at UCLA and working with my students throughout the semester, I I was able to really discover how much and how deeply I care about these issues and also how much I knew about them and recognize that I actually had the expertise to to to contribute positively to an already crowded field of people that write about legal writing. And that I had because of my kind of eclectic background in different ways and and my, you know, my love of language more generally, And then I had something something new to say in addition to helping to synthesize the work of of the of others.
Khurram Naik:And I I think any number of the writers, but any other number of lawyers would love to publish a book as well. Hopefully, maybe not necessarily on legal writing, because as you say, we we've got a few of them. But so what what tips do you have for someone who's looking to work with a publisher? I I you work with UC Press, which I would understand is an academic publisher. Mhmm.
Khurram Naik:So maybe some pros and cons of working with an academic publisher or or just more generally, what would you do differently or the same, if you were, starting over?
Ryan McCarl:Yeah. So so University of California Press has been a phenomenal partner from the beginning of this project. I think that, you know, I like I said, I I tried to write a memoir once before. I I wrote a a part of a book on, education, back when I was in my mid twenties after I got a master's in education from the University of Michigan before going to law school. So I've tried different, different ways of breaking into the world of of traditional publishing that have sometimes, you know, gotten a little bit further gotten my foot in the door.
Ryan McCarl:You know, I've been invited to write a proposal. I even had a proposal accepted at one point, but then, you know, but then ultimately, at the end of the day, it didn't work out for one reason or another. So there's a lot of trial and error there. But what I would say is that you should make sure that you you are or or are are an expert or can acquire deep expertise in the topic and have the motivation to do so because you're only going to be able to, you know, to write something interesting if you have a pretty good handle on what others have already said about it so that you can build on that and and, you know, help to synthesize, convey, and then build convey it and then build on it. That's the only hope you have of really being innovative and interesting, in my opinion, you know, enough to get published by by a traditional publisher.
Ryan McCarl:And then, I guess, when in terms of actually thinking through the publisher, you know, you wanna look at their catalog to see who do they actually publish stuff that is that is in this area? And sometime once sometimes that what I I encountered from a couple a couple of publishers academic publishers I only I only actually approached, like, four, but a couple of them had somebody who was kind of their go to legal writing person in their catalog, and they said no for that reason. But but but University of California Press was a peer of those of those same academic publishers, and and they they were ready for another book on legal writing. So it it worked out. You know, they I then what I had to do was to get it to get it in to get it to get it accepted was, you know, it began with a query letter that became then it then it turned into a book proposal, which was thoroughly vetted.
Ryan McCarl:Then I then had to very quickly write a manuscript after the proposal was accepted in principle. You know? Then it's not it's just contingent on waiting till you have the manuscript in. And I had to very quickly turn the proposal into a full manuscript. Then it goes through a peer review process where there were four anonymous peer reviewers who provided detailed reviews and feedback.
Ryan McCarl:And then there was a vote, you know, the internal vote in the press, then they do even a faculty vote as well to get the book through into the point where you get a book deal. So it's a very long arduous process with many opportunities for it to go wrong. Throughout it, you have to have a great deal of resilience and discipline, which, you know, which is hard to come by, especially if you're a practicing lawyer. This is this is a it's I find it hard in particular to work on projects where the payoff is completely contingent, and, you know, you may end up putting hundreds of hours into something only to have no book at the end of it. But I was able to get myself to do it because I love the subject and because I was able you know, what what really worked for me at every stage was recentering myself as thinking about being a teacher and not and thinking about helping people as well instead of thinking about ego, you know, ego driven ideas of having a book.
Ryan McCarl:It turns out that it's really cool to have a book, and it has built helped me build a great platform that is still growing quickly. But, you know, but to me, that wouldn't necessarily have carried me through all the difficult times of trying to struggle to formulate a principle, that I cover in the book, you know, that I just don't really wanna write about at the time. I know it's important. I don't really feel like writing about it, and I know that if I had that attitude, people aren't gonna wanna read about it. But to stick through that and fight through it and come up and come out with something that that's gonna be polished at the end of the day.
Ryan McCarl:To me, I had to think about about helping people and about being a teacher. And, you know, and and it once the book manuscript was accepted, then I actually rewrote the entire thing. Not one sentence or very few sentences, I'd say were that that ended up in the finished book were there in the accepted manuscript. Because once I knew that I was gonna have this book come out and I knew the close scrutiny that it would be under as a book in a crowded market aimed at busy people, about writing no less, then I rewrote the whole thing, and I and I just revised it millions of times with the help of a lot of a lot of editors.
Khurram Naik:What was the hardest phase of writing the book?
Ryan McCarl:I think the hardest phase is probably the initial draft for me because it just takes so much time. It all every stage of it takes time. But but with revision, you at least have some play to work with and shape. But at first, it's just you and the blank page. And, you know, if you're writing I recommend in the in the process chapters of Elegantly Go Writing that litigators, you know, start with templates and models.
Ryan McCarl:You know, you don't have to completely reinvent the wheel every time you write a discovery motion, for example. But when you're writing a book, there's no template, really. So if you want to write something, you have to create that skeleton, but then you have to fill it with actually fleshing out ideas. One of the things that I found difficult when I was a young associate and in other settings that I've worked in is trying to is when you're asked to write somebody else's ideas and flush them out, because there's just a big difference between an idea in your head versus an idea that has been flushed out on paper and communicated to a reader. And a lot of times, ideas that are in your head turn out to be a little bit nebulous or more vulnerable or less, you know, less sound once you actually write them down.
Ryan McCarl:So it's really that step process of struggling to formulate the, to formulate the the concept on the page and get that first draft on that that I found to be the hardest. Mhmm.
Khurram Naik:And you you mentioned, and by the way, I really love your Apollo 13 reference, I think. That that that that that concept of, hey. We've got this square filter fitness rounds, whatever thing. You know, that that that's a scene from the movie that I always remember the moment. As a kid, I just found out riveting and so fascinating.
Khurram Naik:And I liked your comments and say, hey. You know, the the movie would be a lot differently. It just wouldn't be as interesting a story if just, you know, they walked and say, oh, we're gonna be able to do this thing, and then they did it, and then just didn't show any of the hard work that went into that. So but but but we should be more like that. You know, even though it's not as interesting to to present that way, your your final work product, that you should leave some things on the cutting floor.
Khurram Naik:So I really like that concept. Earlier, you were talking about, you know, the reasons why you wrote the book and and and, reminding yourself of the teaching component and your inherent love of of good pro. It was, probably the most motivating cop you know, most potent motive motivator for you throughout writing this book, which which definitely sounds harrowing. And, yes, it sounds like there's multiple points which, you know, things could have have just run asunder. But, I'd be curious.
Khurram Naik:You know, you have your own law firm. What are the ways in which publishing this book has has benefited your your practice?
Ryan McCarl:Well, it it's the people have people are finding my content useful on LinkedIn and in the blog as well as, obviously, the book itself as the main the main source of it. But, you know, but I'm continuing to to develop new material for, for a future book on legal reasoning, and I'm and I'm continuing to find ways to expand on, you know, refine, sometimes tweak recommendations that I make in the book, and talk about some of the tips that I that I, you know, taught have taught about before or talk about, but that are not in the book. And people find the content people find that content valuable. So what I've that's motivating to see the level of engagement that it gets on LinkedIn. Sometimes, you know, I I've just maybe maybe three to six months about three or six months ago, I think maybe I had, like, a thousand followers or something at most, but I wasn't that engaged on LinkedIn.
Ryan McCarl:Didn't do a whole lot. Was never trying to really cultivate that. But in the I I changed that a little bit in the ramp up to the book as a way of promoting it. And what I found was perhaps because of the demise of Twitter, you know, the and the lack of other, you know, really well established social networks that that that allow for, you know, text people to share text, is that there's a pretty thrigh good thriving community of lawyers that are on LinkedIn and are using it to engage with the profession, to share ideas, share tips. And, sure, there's there's promotion of your firm and your practice and your writing as but it but it's but it's sort of attached to useful content that actually adds value to people, and it's not pure marketing.
Ryan McCarl:I find that to be that I found that to be a really great way to meet a lot of attorneys, and a lot of way to a a great way to kind of build an audience for the future. And I my my hope is that, you know, and people people have taken a great interest in the in the the the briefs my firm has written as a result of my my writing about legal writing. So people are a lot of people have looked at the the complaint we filed in our our litigation, our class action, punitive class action case against the manufacturers of Stanley Tumbler Cups or the Amicus brief that we wrote on behalf of coach Jim Harbaugh in the Michigan versus Big Ten litigation back in the fall. Those are already kind of inherently interesting topics, and it adds a bit of in extra interest from the perspective of lawyers to find that, oh, there's a QR code in this brief or this complaint or, you know, that where you can watch an Instagram. You can click you can scan the the brief, and you can watch an Instagram post that that is that is relevant to complaint.
Ryan McCarl:Or, you know, where what is this font that that does not Times New Roman? You know, where things like that that I think that I think have brought our our firm's work to the attention of a much broader audience. And so my hope is that over time, it will those connections will continue to lead to referrals and continue to lead to, bringing us in as as counsel whenever there are high stakes motions to argue or trials.
Khurram Naik:Okay. And final question for you. If you could wave a magic wand and make a word disappear from every brace that's ever written from here on out, you never have to read this word again. What's the word you wanna make disappear?
Ryan McCarl:There are so many. Utterly. Probably utterly. I don't know. That could be it.
Ryan McCarl:There's a lot. There's so many. There are really so many, Ram. I I, you know, I list a lot of them, a lot of the worst offenders in the book. You know, there's just there's some there are so many words that we use unnecessarily.
Ryan McCarl:I honestly, terms terms and conditions is another one. It's not a word. It's a phrase. But, honestly, it just it kills me. Yeah.
Ryan McCarl:It's so ubiquitous. It kills me because because of its inherent redundancy because every condition is just a form of a term. Each and each and every you know? And what may be the worst offender in my mind as I think of it this is this is a great question because it just makes me my skin crawl as I think of some of these these practices. But, you know, the practice of writing spelling out a numb writing a number in dollar sign with a dollar, you know, in a decimal and then spelling it out as though you couldn't read the first you didn't understand the first time around Sure.
Ryan McCarl:Even though every third grader can read numbers. To me, it's just absolutely baffling tradition.
Khurram Naik:It also increases the odds of creating ambiguity because you just added you know, if if there's some percentage that is misunderstood, you're adding some other bit of text that also could potentially conflict. Like, maybe I should put the wrong number at you just you're you're pounding confusion rather than clarifying. So
Ryan McCarl:Yeah. So whenever you repeat, this is something that, you know, that programmers, web designers know, you know, know well. But if you have repeated text, it's good to have a variable that you affect once you change once, and then it's fixed everywhere. But as you're referring to, I think if you try to repeat the same number twice, you've just introduced the possibility that you may if you got the number wrong, now you have to remember to correct it in several different places. And if you're writing it out as a digit and as in, you know, and in in in letters, now you're not you're you're find and replace operations.
Ryan McCarl:You're not gonna find both instances of it. So it just it it's it's one of those sort of kind of senseless legal traditions that, I'm not the first to say. I'm hardly the first to say that that's got to go. You know, that's something that Brian Garner's been saying for decades. But that's, as well as legal writing professors.
Ryan McCarl:But yet it persists to this day, which goes to show that, you know, this is there are still lessons to be learned in this area, both lessons that have been that have been taught and ones that are that are that are fairly new.
Khurram Naik:Yeah. That should make you feel very comforted as a teacher of legal writing that your job is definitely not over yet and No.
Ryan McCarl:A lot more work to do. Yeah. Right. Normally, I write your grid briefs for you.
Khurram Naik:Cool. Alright. This is great. Glad we connected here, and, congrats on the book, and, best wishes on its success.
Ryan McCarl:Thank you so much for your time.
Khurram Naik:Thanks.