This makes a lot of sense, and it has shown itself in the doctrinal classes we are taking. For example, we started Civil Procedure with the case Pennoyer v. Neff. We learned that as a precedent of the time. Then, we quickly learned that Pennoyer's precedent was mostly overruled in International Shoe. It has become quite evident that we have to research thorougly to ensure what we are referring to is correct and accurate. Otherwise, we may just cite an inaccuracy.

Something I am having trouble with is finding the right precedent. This section of the reading talks about the vast amount of precedents and how they are applied, either as persuasive sources or primary sources. Perhaps this comes with practice, but I cannot help to think if there is a formulaic method of finding the "right case." In class, we talked about the one good case method and using that case to find other sources, and I have found that particularly helpful. However, the practice of research is an ongoing journey.

It seems like, in law school, a great deal of improvement comes from learning from what other people do. Perhaps, this is a universal truth for all fields. Yet, this feels so apparent for law school. From legal research to reading cases, I am developing my methods of approach by looking at resources, assignments, and asking my peers about their approach. I perceive all of this as a collaborative effort.

This is something that I hope I can achieve. Despite spending almost six weeks in law school, I am unaware if anything has "clicked" for me. However, I am riding on the wave that it will eventually click, that law school and legal studied will eventually get better. I want to get to a point where I have a "pattern of approach" for legal research and reading legal documents. I am certain though that I am more equipped now that I was six weeks ago. But, I still have a long way to do.

I believe, perhaps I am mistaken, that some form of punishment for absurdly terrible legal writing is appropriate. An impossible to decipher piece of material causes everyone involved, including the writer, a difficult time. It is a skill, I would think, is a cornerstone to being a lawyer. Surely, if a lawyer is able to extract clear rules from unclear fact patterns, then it should not prove difficult to write a clear brief. I admit that not all lawyers should be suspended for one bad brief. However, I think some sort of punishment is necessary for repeated offenses. This is an issue that can be corrected anyways without the interference of the legal system.

I am not the best writer on the planet. But, as I progress through law school, would hope to I improve my writing capabilities to a point where I can make legal princples clear and easy to understand.

No law or regulation should be changed in the argument that effective legal writing is pertinent to a lawyer's professional responsibility. I agree with this assertion in this passage. Particularly, court opinions and secondary material are immensely influential in the pursuit of justice. Interpreting and extracting rules and comments from those documents should not be as cumbersome as arguing those cases as counsel. For justice to be accurate, the legal writing should be in a manner that is easily understandable. Extracting rules should not be the most difficult part of a lawyer's career, and it is one that can be made clearer.