This passage points out an interesting quirk in legal decision-making: we often lean on what we already know, sometimes without even realizing it, to decide between legal arguments. This happens because different areas of law, like probate and contract law, often share useful similarities, especially in procedure and evidence rules. In a way, we start deciding based on these familiar patterns before we've fully worked through the issue—almost like our decisions are shaped by decisions we've already made. It reminds me of the idea of not overthinking less we second guess ourselves and eventually get it wrong.

This is a particularly interesting phrase because of the saying "a picture is worth a thousand words" it begs the question "but are they the right words?" I think images are up to so much more interpretation than words are - theres only so many meanings of so many ways to string words together. The idea that images could replace words when it comes to matters of law seems insane to me, because of how much inference they require to interpret. This is a very relevant issue/fact, its something that I feel will affect juries, pleadings, parties, and even counselors when in trial and prior to litigation.

To the end of the sentence on the next page:

The first portion of this quote highlights the idea of legal research involving gathering and analyzing statutes, case law, and precedents and crafting the actual legal documents. It also emphasizes that these two things require a much deeper level of creativity and personal interpretation than often thought of. Creating these legal documents requires critical thinking, persuasive techniques, and a variety of stylistic choices that reflect the author's (attorney's) voice and perspective. This quote highlights the duality of the legal profession: the reliance on empirical data and well-established laws, and the art that is the actual profession itself - thriving on individual expression and interpretation; it makes the practice rigorous and dynamic.

This provides insight on the intricate process of researching legal frameworks that provide outlines for our legal system - like the Restatement of the Law and Uniform Laws. These are designed to clarify legal principles, but not to enforce the law unless the courts adopt them. A legal researcher's task is not just about reading these difficult texts but also about actually understanding them and being able to apply them where necessary. This particular part of the practice reflects a larger truth which is that the practical application of the law often differs from the theory of the law. Legal researchers cannot only rely on the theory of law, but also have to engage in the judicial evolution of legal doctrines. The legal doctrines provided by sources like the restatements and UCC must be viewed by themselves and also through their application to cases in order to truly understand how they influence the law.

This underscores the way one needs to blend structure and individuality in any and all legal research. An experienced researcher might develop their own "pattern of approach" over time, but it was likely to be shaped by how your professors taught you and how their professors taught them. The overall method is likely to be the same others', even if there are situations - such as unique legal questions - where one might take a specific route towards research. Like most research processes - across the board - there's a bit of standardization of the legal one. Even if we all have differences in what works best for us, we all have to make sure we're competent, thorough, and efficient. Its the mix of the personal and the structured that makes legal research so creative while also being methodical.

This reminds me of that paragraph that we read for class that essentially acknowledged the court made a mistake, but instead of saying it clearly, the paragraph (one sentence) was like 10 lines long. Deciphering repetitive and poorly written work makes lawyers' and the courts' lives extremely difficult, especially because they are trying to interpret the law in such a way that makes it fair to people.

By framing effective writing as part of professional responsibility, this suggests that lawyers have a duty to communicate in a way that is easily understood, helping to avoid confusion or misrepresentation. This is important not only for the benefit of clients but also to ensure the smooth functioning of the legal system. In this way, legal writing is closely tied to the ethical principles of competence, diligence, and transparency that all attorneys must uphold.