The Relationship between Brief Readability and Summary Judgment Decisions

Abstract

The legal profession and the legal academy stress the importance of clear writing as a substantial component of effective law practice. But does clear writing translate into effective lawyering? This study takes a novel approach by using lawyers’ writing to measure the quality of legal advocacy. It is the only study to do so at the trial court level, where most lawyers practice, and is the first to track the difference in the readability of opposing parties’ briefs in the same case. After earlier studies of appellate brief quality and success on appeal yielded conflicting results, our study provides a clear association between brief readability and favorable outcomes on summary judgment motions. The study focuses on summary judgment motions because they offer a clear dichotomous outcome: the motions are either granted or denied. After controlling for attorney experience, law firm size, and a lawyer’s status as a repeat player before the motion judge, we find a statistically significant correlation between brief readability and summary judgment decisions.