Let's talk about lists.
How to effectively implement lists in legal writing
Lists are a useful way to organize information or to break up concepts. They can get confusing, though, if implemented poorly.
Here are a few tips for maximizing the utility of lists in legal writing.
Match the intro to the list.
If you introduce a category of items, make sure the follow-up matches.
For example, if you say there are going to be three reasons, give three reasons and stick to that framework. If you say there are five changes to the law, make sure there are five.
Example: I like CrossFit for three reasons: (1) it is fun; (2) it is challenging; and (3) it is a good distraction from work.
The “three” is followed up by three reasons. Then, ideally, you would have have three paragraphs explaining each reasons. Or, you’d have three subparts with matching headings (as discussed below).
Don’t drop off.
If you’re using “First,” “Second,” etc. in introducing ideas, make sure you finish the series. It is super confusing to a reader to see an introduction say there are three reasons and then scan the text only to see “First” and “Second.” Make sure your introductory phrases correspond to the list you presented.
Use headings or numbers to help.
Using headings and numbers can help with implementing a list, but make sure you use them effectively. If you are writing the roadmap for Part I and say there are two subparts, then introduce them as Subpart A and Subpart B and then have the headings follow accordingly. It feels disjointed to the reader to read a list with 1, 2, and 3 and then see headings with A, B, and C.
Example 1: This Part discusses the background of changes to Florida’s capital sentencing scheme since 2016: (1) the Florida Legislature’s 2016 statute that was overturned in Perry; (2) the 2017 statute that was implemented after Hurst II, and (3) pending legislation that lowers the standard for imposing a sentence of death in Florida.
A. 2016 Statute
B. 2017 Statute
C. Pending Legislation
Example 2: This Part discusses the background of changes to Florida’s capital sentencing scheme since 2016. Subpart A discusses the Florida Legislature’s 2016 statute that was overturned in Perry. Subpart B discusses the 2017 statute that was implemented after Hurst II, and Subpart C discusses pending legislation that lowers the standard for imposing a sentence of death in Florida.
A. 2016 Statute
B. 2017 Statute
C. Pending Legislation
Which one felt more cohesive? My guess is you answered Example 2.
Judges love lists. If I could write my appellate briefs in mostly list form, I would!