What do you think?
Rate this book
How to Write Better Law Essays: Tools & Techniques for Success in Exams & Assignments
This book is an invaluable companion to those studying law as part of an LLB programme, a GDL course, a joint-honours degree or a professional qualification such as CILEx.
282 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2007
5 people are currently reading
52 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews
June 24, 2017
I have to admit, this book is pretty boring but it does contain some useful information on what to include in an essay, how to construct essays and some in depth information on how to quote legal sources. In my opinion, it is essential to have a book instructing you how to write better in a legal context as none of this is told to you at the beginnning of study. I guess you are expected to find the information yourself if you are interested in improving your writing skills.
October 27, 2017
Claims to be suitable for both undergraduate and Graduate Diploma students, but really it seems to be aimed more at those studying at university for the first time, in a fairly general sense, without so much specific to law. As such it’s not really helpful for the 50% of law students who already have an undergraduate degree. (There is apparently an additional section specific to postgraduates on the publisher’s website, but frankly if they wanted it to be accounted for in a review they should have put it in the book.)
It’s also, frankly, rather patronizing even towards first-year undergraduates; it’s been a few years since I did my A levels but I’m pretty sure that, even back then, correct spelling, punctuation, and grammar were mandatory, so I wonder whether it’s really necessary to be explaining that at length. There are further examples of ‘bad’ students with poor arguments and so on; while examples of flawed logic and so on may be helpful, it comes across as rather self-satisfied, perhaps because of the tendency to conflate all the flaws into one example: not only is the logic flawed and the referencing inadequate, but the spelling is poor; in several cases, these ‘bad’ examples also use opinions with which the author seems to disagree, so the overall effect is just of a strawman opponent for the author to tear down.
On perhaps a more debatable note, the author constantly rails against ‘clumsy’ (meaning informal) phrasing in legal writing. It seems to be an unquestioned truth that using more formal language is inherently better. It’s hard to determine, because in so many examples used the ‘clumsy’ language is almost a caricature; but nevertheless I think it ought to be questioned whether ‘informal’ language is actually ‘unprofessional’, and whether using formal language actually helps clients, or whether this is just an exclusionary tactic perpetuated by the law profession (including, in this case, teachers).
There are some decent points, such as an overview of the OSCOLA referencing standard, but this can be found elsewhere.
It’s also, frankly, rather patronizing even towards first-year undergraduates; it’s been a few years since I did my A levels but I’m pretty sure that, even back then, correct spelling, punctuation, and grammar were mandatory, so I wonder whether it’s really necessary to be explaining that at length. There are further examples of ‘bad’ students with poor arguments and so on; while examples of flawed logic and so on may be helpful, it comes across as rather self-satisfied, perhaps because of the tendency to conflate all the flaws into one example: not only is the logic flawed and the referencing inadequate, but the spelling is poor; in several cases, these ‘bad’ examples also use opinions with which the author seems to disagree, so the overall effect is just of a strawman opponent for the author to tear down.
On perhaps a more debatable note, the author constantly rails against ‘clumsy’ (meaning informal) phrasing in legal writing. It seems to be an unquestioned truth that using more formal language is inherently better. It’s hard to determine, because in so many examples used the ‘clumsy’ language is almost a caricature; but nevertheless I think it ought to be questioned whether ‘informal’ language is actually ‘unprofessional’, and whether using formal language actually helps clients, or whether this is just an exclusionary tactic perpetuated by the law profession (including, in this case, teachers).
There are some decent points, such as an overview of the OSCOLA referencing standard, but this can be found elsewhere.
August 20, 2014
EDIT20/8/14: I FOUGHT THE LAW AND WE WON
Will rate it 5 stars if I passed my law paper. It's so dreary and boring but that's just me having little patience reading law texts. There are noteworthy points that I found useful: how to credit sources; avoid plagiarism; construct a good argument and; apply cases to problem solving questions.
Will rate it 5 stars if I passed my law paper. It's so dreary and boring but that's just me having little patience reading law texts. There are noteworthy points that I found useful: how to credit sources; avoid plagiarism; construct a good argument and; apply cases to problem solving questions.
July 12, 2021
A great book that has really helped me break into the top marks; I would recommend it.
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews