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?
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.
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!