The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
ITT we talk about reply briefs
Poast new message in this thread
Date: April 30th, 2013 5:08 PM Author: flushed trip locale travel guidebook I'm of the opinion that a reply brief should generally be very focused and tackle the main argument put forward by the answering papers. But a lot of the partners I work with want me to quibble with every little thing said in the answering papers, no matter how irrelevant, which I feel confuses the central argument.
Am I just a poor writer if I can't make putting dozens of unnecessary points in my papers work without muddling down the papers' actual point? |
 |
Date: April 30th, 2013 5:09 PM Author: Bonkers cracking mad-dog skullcap regret i'm with you brah (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2243989&forum_id=2#23108295) |
|
Date: April 30th, 2013 5:10 PM Author: Pale ticket booth no, a good writer will do that, however a biglaw partner wants any little fucking victory he can get, even if it doesn't matter, to brag to the client about
"oh we pwned them on x, they didn't even mention it in their brief, what tards huh Brian, now here's your bill" |
|
Date: April 30th, 2013 6:15 PM Author: Offensive excitant den trump supporter i agree it confuses the argument, but it also preserves the issue for appeal. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2243989&forum_id=2#23108676) |
|
Date: April 30th, 2013 6:17 PM Author: emerald fiercely-loyal cuckold indirect expression jfc the two people ITT who have mentioned preserving an issue for appeal have no idea wtf they're talking about.
there is no appellate waiver if your shitlaw opposing counsel mis-cites a totally irrelevant case and you totally ignore it in the reply brief. |
|
Date: April 30th, 2013 6:18 PM Author: Charismatic Bbw Theater mischaracterizing the premise: "quibble with every little thing said," not "mis-cites a totally irrelevant case" (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2243989&forum_id=2#23108697) |
|
Date: April 30th, 2013 6:20 PM Author: Offensive excitant den trump supporter this (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2243989&forum_id=2#23108706) |
|
Date: April 30th, 2013 6:21 PM Author: Charismatic Bbw Theater that said, if they do mis-cite and throw a bunch of strawman arguments, you can shove it down their throats by calling them out on it (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2243989&forum_id=2#23108720) |
|
Date: April 30th, 2013 6:30 PM Author: emerald fiercely-loyal cuckold indirect expression yeah, correct. but as i said below, you need to do this in a way where you don't look petty, and where you don't let the court get distracted in a retard squabbling battle, and they miss your main points. that's why op's problem is a challenge. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2243989&forum_id=2#23108787) |
|
Date: April 30th, 2013 6:30 PM Author: Charismatic Bbw Theater fair (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2243989&forum_id=2#23108791) |
|
Date: April 30th, 2013 6:21 PM Author: emerald fiercely-loyal cuckold indirect expression that's one typical example of the type of quibbling you'll do in a reply brief. there's no appellate waiver for failing to quibble with most full of shit things in an opposition brief. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2243989&forum_id=2#23108714) |
|
Date: April 30th, 2013 6:22 PM Author: Charismatic Bbw Theater except you don't know which of the "little things" that are legitimate might loom large for the judge (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2243989&forum_id=2#23108724) |
|
Date: April 30th, 2013 6:23 PM Author: emerald fiercely-loyal cuckold indirect expression you're talking in generalities so it's hard to argue against you. let's try this: give me an example of some way in which you contend that the moving party would face an appellate waiver for not addressing something in a reply brief. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2243989&forum_id=2#23108737) |
|
Date: April 30th, 2013 6:27 PM Author: Charismatic Bbw Theater I will take a pass on that simply because my experience is with a very specialized area of law that might out me. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2243989&forum_id=2#23108766) |
|
Date: April 30th, 2013 6:37 PM Author: shivering deranged headpube nowag xoxohth defamation law? you're gto or work at kvn!! (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2243989&forum_id=2#23108846) |
|
Date: April 30th, 2013 6:36 PM Author: Sick thriller rehab striped hyena Also, I have literally never seen a court say "YEAH IT'S TOO LATE TO SAY BOO ABOUT IT NOW NIGGA" when you miss a stupid point on a reply, even though i have seen brief after brief with the phrase "DEFENDANT CANNOT NOW ARGUE..." (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2243989&forum_id=2#23108831) |
|
Date: April 30th, 2013 6:40 PM Author: emerald fiercely-loyal cuckold indirect expression (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2243989&forum_id=2#23108864) |
|
Date: April 30th, 2013 10:29 PM Author: flushed trip locale travel guidebook yeah me neither. the only thing you would waive is if you failed to object to evidence or something. i've never heard an appellate court say "the party didn't cite this case in his brief at trial therefore i will not consider the case!" (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2243989&forum_id=2#23110465) |
|
Date: April 30th, 2013 10:35 PM Author: Razzle-dazzle Awkward Community Account Kitty Cat Ruskie practices immigration law so maybe it's relevant for her but immigration is a lot different from what everyone is talking about. I think maybe she's talking about her reply briefs before the BIA and preserving error for COA PFR's (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2243989&forum_id=2#23110524) |
|
Date: April 30th, 2013 6:34 PM Author: Sick thriller rehab striped hyena If you don't lard the reply up with a bunch of bullshit, you can't bill for it. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2243989&forum_id=2#23108819) |
|
Date: April 30th, 2013 11:40 PM Author: flushed trip locale travel guidebook sure u can. u just bill for the time u spent researching and thinking about those side issues. just cuz it doesn't ultimately make its way into the brief doesn't mean u cant bill for it. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2243989&forum_id=2#23111089) |
Date: April 30th, 2013 5:10 PM Author: aquamarine heady step-uncle's house prefer boxers (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2243989&forum_id=2#23108299) |
|
Date: April 30th, 2013 6:27 PM Author: Bull headed rebellious crackhouse psychic (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2243989&forum_id=2#23108769) |
|
Date: April 30th, 2013 5:10 PM Author: shivering deranged headpube nowag my reply briefs...basically i start with their response and attack it for 75%. then i spend the last 25% showing how they failed to undermine any of the points in my original brief. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2243989&forum_id=2#23108301) |
|
Date: April 30th, 2013 5:11 PM Author: hairraiser lodge I usually just cut and paste the opening brief, move a few things around, and bill a ton. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2243989&forum_id=2#23108311) |
|
Date: April 30th, 2013 5:13 PM Author: purple garrison Enjoy waiving dem arguments on appeal, brah.
I've found, even though older partners can be terrible writers, they understand the litigation long game much better than I do. You might think something is irrelevant that will become relevant down the road. |
|
Date: April 30th, 2013 6:45 PM Author: Startled Roast Beef National lol no one actually appeals (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2243989&forum_id=2#23108892) |
|
Date: April 30th, 2013 11:43 PM Author: provocative abode lol you're not even a lawyer (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2243989&forum_id=2#23111114) |
|
Date: April 30th, 2013 5:13 PM Author: Razzmatazz Church Building Agreed. Focus on the main shit imo. Also, speaking of reply briefs, I'm working on one right now.
Filed a 12b6 because they can't recover based on the allegations. Plaintiff responds and essentially tries to rewrite the complaint in their statement of facts (they don't actually amend the complaint, because none of it is true). Includes a little footnote saying, "[e]ssentially, Defendant is mischaracterizing what is plead in the complaint, and then arguing that such mischaracterization fails to state a claim."
Working on the reply now, I addressed how everything in their response was horse shit and isn't plead in the complaint. Conclude that section with, "[e]ssentially, Plaintiff is mischaracterizing what is plead in the complaint and then arguing that such mischaracterization states a claim."
I hope they visualize me giving them the finger. |
|
Date: April 30th, 2013 5:36 PM Author: emerald fiercely-loyal cuckold indirect expression sometimes judges get sidetracked and go down the wrong direction and get caught up on stupid shit. that's why it's better to respond to everything.
but you need to respond to everything in a way that still allows you to focus on destroying their central argument. that's the tricky part. |
|
Date: April 30th, 2013 6:08 PM Author: flushed trip locale travel guidebook yeah. maybe i'm just a bad writer. i think i'm a solid writer when i'm responding to a discrete argument. but when i'm told to find a way to refute random shit in addition to the main points i can't really figure out a way without destroying the readability of the reply. i also feel like i'm just playing into the other party's game by responding to shit that doesn't really merit a response. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2243989&forum_id=2#23108640) |
|
Date: April 30th, 2013 6:13 PM Author: emerald fiercely-loyal cuckold indirect expression writing a reply brief is the hardest thing in legal writing, IMO, for all the reasons you've identified.
you need to play into the other party's game, somewhat, though. it's really hard if you're against some incompetent lawyer who just miscites and misinterprets cases.
there are different ways to approach it. you could work the minor shit into footnotes. or you could even have a section at the end dismissing the other side's args. |
|
Date: April 30th, 2013 6:51 PM Author: Bull headed rebellious crackhouse psychic (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2243989&forum_id=2#23108952) |
|
Date: April 30th, 2013 11:46 PM Author: provocative abode This. If you are mirroring the opp's structure, save misc arguments for the end of each section, or you can have one last section just for misc arguments, or drop those footnotes. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2243989&forum_id=2#23111139) |
|
Date: April 30th, 2013 6:28 PM Author: Bull headed rebellious crackhouse psychic (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2243989&forum_id=2#23108774) |
|
Date: April 30th, 2013 6:21 PM Author: ebony azn every single one of these threads makes me happy im not lit (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2243989&forum_id=2#23108712) |
|
Date: April 30th, 2013 6:33 PM Author: Bull headed rebellious crackhouse psychic (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2243989&forum_id=2#23108808) |
|
Date: April 30th, 2013 6:37 PM Author: Sick thriller rehab striped hyena (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2243989&forum_id=2#23108842) |
|
Date: April 30th, 2013 10:43 PM Author: abnormal sanctuary alpha I like to use it to refocus the argument on the key points of the opening brief, especially if the other side didn't come up with a good response to those points. So oftentimes I'll follow the structure of the opening brief and address the counter-args as they go, with a last section-header as clean-up for all remaining one-off args. Or if their opp is decent, I'll start the first part with a quick summary of the core args that they failed to rebut, followed by detailed rebuttals of their key arguments. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2243989&forum_id=2#23110585) |
|
Date: April 30th, 2013 10:55 PM Author: zippy crimson senate giraffe I often try to find an overarching theme for these little issues and quickly address each of them. They often aren't as disparate as they first appear.
"Opposing counsel has mischaracterized the record." a through f
"Plaintiff has misinterpreted applicable case law." a through e
etc. |
|
Date: April 30th, 2013 11:10 PM Author: flushed trip locale travel guidebook good point. i guess i can just add a section at the end like everyone else and just label it like your example to clean up everything else (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2243989&forum_id=2#23110812) |
|
Date: April 30th, 2013 11:30 PM Author: Marvelous jap Wow I'm glad I just move commas around in tranny law (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2243989&forum_id=2#23111023) |
|
Date: April 30th, 2013 11:45 PM Author: Mentally impaired aromatic theater stage toilet seat In my opinion, you should generally reply to every argument. You should treat seriously every argument made by the other side. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2243989&forum_id=2#23111130) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2013 12:04 AM Author: maniacal business firm Restate your main argument in opening paragraph. Precisely (citing to page/line # in answer) address every issue raised in answer, restate your main argument in final paragraph. No confusion for lazy/dumb superior court judge. Hth. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2243989&forum_id=2#23111327) |