In “Philosophy v. Rhetoric in Legal Education: Understanding the Schism Between Doctrinal and Legal Writing Faculty,” Kristen Konrad Robbins, Professor of Legal Research and Writing, Georgetown University Law Center, does a far better job than I did at explaining that legal writing is as much about analysis as someone teaching contracts, constitutional law, or any of the other casebook courses:
We teach a complex and sophisticated art form that combines the acquisition of knowledge—the law itself—and its application—persuasive technique. In researching and writing a memo or brief, students find and synthesize controlling law to invent the major premises for their conclusions. In applying these premises to the facts of their case, students often engage in analogy and distinction, using the facts and policies of case decisions to predict or argue for a certain outcome. At the same time, students must anticipate their audiences’ needs in the way they construct documents, frame issues, characterize facts, reason, and cite to authority. They must first suppress some of their writing instincts in order to learn the discourse of the legal community and, once they assimilate it, draw again on their own creativity.
