We want LI to be one of the friendliest places on the internet, where lawyers and law students help each other with their career related queries and occasionally discuss other stuff that might affect their lives too. In other words:
1. Be kind, respectful and helpful to each other.
2. Be bona fide, truthful, genuine and curious.
3. Assume the best intention of others.
Therefore, in using the site, you must agree to do your best to uphold these community guidelines.
Note that what you find here is written and moderated by anonymous people on the internet.
Therefore everything you read here is very likely unverified, rumour, speculation and/or downright false.
In continuing to read anything here, you must therefore agree not to take anything you read here as factual and that you will exercise due caution, diligence and common sense before acting on any information you may come across here.
You also agree to report any inaccurate or malicious comments with the buttons. Moderators take action within 24 hours, as required and appropriate under law.
Our full terms and conditions apply too.
Do you solemnly agree to all of the above?
Another thing: When people do make novel contributions, not every sentence/para has some novelty, a lot of space is invested in engaging with existing scholarships, justifying the new ideas/concepts/arguments, defending it, responding to potential criticism etc. Whatever new you do is often very tiny, and that's absolutely alright.
Things changed when I joined the debating club because we had to argue almost every issue from all sides from first principles, it really forced me to read widely and to flex some brain muscles and think. And training myself in that first principles thinking helped me write more argumentative and less descriptive articles. I would suggest you read They Say I Say or Understanding Argument- both recommended by a professor of mine- and practice arguing with as many different people as possible so you can hone those skills.
The next turn for me was reading empirical legal literature, law and society work, law and humanities work, law and economics work- very few people in India know how to rigorously do those things and learning that was difficult but well worth it and it took me from just writing new arguments to providing new evidence and writing fairly impactful things. This last- you might find your niche somewhere else- maybe its law and philosophy for you or something else. It is worth being open minded and exploring all of it.
1) Novelty: The aim of your paper or blog should be to add something to the existing scholarship on the topic you have picked. Now, how do you do this? Simplest answer is "reading". Read everything and anything about it. Even papers that are not directly related to your topic but can be relevant from a particular lens. The more you read on an issue, the more your brain will form connections, and you will come up with your original thoughts.
2) If you are new to academic writing, do not pick very hot burning legal developments. Way too many people write on a monumental development in any area of law. Try finding something that hasn't been discussed a lot on several fora.
3) Minimise the descriptive part of your piece. I have reviewed articles where kids have simply paraphrased a judgement and used fancy words to make it seem analytical. For blogs, you only have around 1500 words. If your analytical part is mere 100-200 words, it's not going to get accepted.
4) Formatting: It gives a very wrong impression when kids don't even bother reading the submission guidelines of the blog. If the blog requires you to hyperlink sources (the ones you can), and you have put footnotes, it shows you have done a sloppy job.
5) Proof-reading: This is a no-brainer. If you can't do this properly, don't become a lawyer.
Lastly, just like anything else, remember that it is a skill. You will get better with time. Don't beat yourself up if your article is not accepted. Trust the process, you'll get there. All the best!
(I also have trouble with reading research papers from JSTOR and HeinOnline and extracting relevant data from them. How can we improve?)
Try to think what your future clients would want to know and blog around that - start your own blog - thank me later
I see IndCorpLaw, IRCCL, and other NLU blogs and journals and frequently try to see where I am going wrong. I have a few publications in journals (which are not very famous or esteemed), and I have a few drafts on which I am constantly working in my free time.
The problem in general is that all I am doing in the name of research is reiterate the same provisions, adding some judgements, past research papers, and some of my personal analysis before concluding that 3–4k word paper. This bothers me, as I'm not really adding anything new to the table. All I do is read and rephrase the descriptive information, add my interpretation, and get done with it.
Now I don't want to pursue academia, but I'm concerned that all I am doing in the name of research is just putting on a facade and not adding anything substantial. If anyone's had similar trouble, I'd like to know your experience and how you improved as a legal writer.