第一章 适用于所有类型法律写作的若干原则
第1节 言之有物，思考透彻
写作，最大的难点在哪里？在于从万千思绪中确立论点，进而通过充分的论证、翔实的论据，加以清晰阐述。
这条原则看似显而易见，却常为法律写作者忽视，导致文章含糊不清、表意不明。即便论点了然于胸，若辅以千回百转的铺陈，则与毫无论点又有何区别呢？除非动力极强，否则读者是不会费力钻研，刨根问底的。
这就该说说法学院了。每个学法律的人，都得咀嚼无数冗长晦涩的文本。案例论述迂回曲折，迟迟不指出浅显易懂的道理；又如洋洋洒洒50页的法律评论，实则写上5页就足够了，论证还会更有力。法学生之所以从头到尾动力极强，埋头苦读，探求大意，无非因为自己的职业生涯将立足于此。除了硬着头皮去啃雾里看花的文本，别无他法。
下面这个单句摘自一份司法意见。试试看，你能概括出法庭的观点吗？
And in the outset we may as well be frank enough to confess， and， indeed， in view of the seriousness of the consequences which upon fuller reflection we find would inevitably result to municipalities in the matter of street improvements from the conclusion reached and announced in the former opinion， we are pleased to declare that the arguments upon rehearing have convinced us that the decision upon the ultimate question involved here formerly rendered by this court， even if not faulty in its reasoning from the premises announced or wholly erroneous in conclusions as to some of the questions incidentally arising and necessarily legitimate subjects of discussion in the decision of the main proposition， is， at any rate， one which may， under the peculiar circumstances of this case， the more justly and at the same time， upon reasons of equal cogency， be superseded by a conclusion whose effect cannot be to disturb the integrity of the long and well- established system for the improvement of streets in the incorporated cities and towns of California not governed by freeholders’charters.
法庭所言何意？辞藻虽华美至极，所言无非“本院上次判错了”，而已。
如果在此基础之上，增词添句，到处回旋往复，最终堆砌成章，必然佶屈聱牙，愈发晦涩。这样的文章，除了法学生和有偿服务的律师之外，是不会有人愿意研读的。
即使你甘愿啃读他人创作的晦涩文本，你自己下笔时可得立定目标：绝不能让你的读者受这份罪。因此作者应兼备“读者思维”与“作者思维”。所谓读者思维，即应思维敏锐，拨云见日，径取要害；所谓作者思维，即应专心致志，摒弃芜杂，直抒胸臆。
这是优秀法律写作者的第一步。
练习
每一级练习都需要首先查找指定案例，然后撰写相应的案例摘要，即遵循案例梗概的标准格式：（1）案例名、引文来源信息（依适当格式）；（2）案情梳理；（3）有待裁决的问题；（4）判决；（5）判决理由。最终成文篇幅不应超过5×7英寸索引卡片（正反面）所限。练习难度递增，原因无外乎两点。其一，案例所涉法理愈加复杂；其二，司法意见的语言难度增加。完成练习后，可请友人评判所拟案例摘要是否易懂。
以下为案例摘要范例：
Case: Henderson v. Ford Motor Co.， 519 S.W.2d 87 (Tex. 1974).
Facts: While driving in city traffic， Henderson found that， despite repeated attempts， she couldn’t brake.To avoid injuring anyone， she ran into a pole. An investigator later found that part of a rubber gasket from the air filter had gotten into the carburetor. Henderson sued Ford on various theories， including defective design. Her expert witness didn’t criticize the design of the gasket， carburetor， or air filter， but did say that the positioning of the parts might have been better. No one testified that the air-filter housing was unreasonably dangerous from the time of installation. Yet the jury determined that the air-filter housing was defective and that this defect had caused Henderson’s damage.
Question: The expert witness didn’t testify that the design was unreasonably dangerous—only that it could be improved on. Is this testimony sufficient to support a jury finding that a product’s design is unreasonably dangerous?
Holding: Mere evidence that a design could be made better—without evidence that the design itself was unreasonably dangerous—is insufficient to impose liability on a manufacturer.
Reasoning: A plaintiff in a design-defect case must provide some evidence that the design of the product made it unreasonably dangerous. Specifically， the evidence must show that a prudent manufacturer who was knowledgeable about the risks would not have placed the particular product in the stream of commerce. Mere speculation that a product might be improved on does not constitute evidence of a design defect. A manufacturer is not required to design the best product that is scientifically possible.
本节摘要
√确定你的信息。在开始写任何你希望最终使用的东西之前，决定你的主要观点是什么。
√考虑你的目标读者以及传达你的信息的最有效方式。
√如果你没有特定的读者，就用你认识的人。永远不要在脑海中没有读者的情况下写作。
√通过撰写案件摘要来练习法律写作。以示例中所示的方式解释案件，就好像对完全不了解它的人一样。使用巧妙的阐述。
購物車/收銀台(0) | 在線留言板
| 付款方式
| 聯絡我們
| 運費計算
| 幫助中心 |
加入書簽
HOME
新書上架
