Editing for Clarity and Conciseness Exercise
Autumn School of Global Legal Skills and Legal Writing 2020
Professor Kimberly Holst
Based on the information gathered from the interview with Cody Young, it is unlikely that
he will be considered guilty of arson in the second degree by a reasonable court of law. Although
the fire did result in damage to his neighbor’s house, the action does not satisfy the requirement
that it be committed “willfully and maliciously,” which is a necessary component of the rule as
established by the original statute and subsequent case law.
In regard to the requirement that the action be “willfully” done, Cody does not satisfy this
requirement based on the precedent set by the case of Grable v. Varela. In Grable v. Varela, the
defendant set the fire with the intention of clearing a patch of grass, and it was only due to
extraneous forces that the fire spread and caused property damage. This is similar to the
circumstances in this case against Cody since he only started the fire to dispose of some trash in his
backyard, with no intent to cause property damage and with no awareness that the fire would
spread significantly outside of the pile. Based on this evidence, it does not seem that the act
satisfies the conditions necessary for it to be willful.
The requirement that the action be done “maliciously” is also not fulfilled based on a
combination of factors. Although Cody was aware of the close proximity of the fire to the
neighbor’s house, the fire was not started with the intent to cause damage to the property. Cody
believed the fire would burn itself out, and he reaffirmed in the interview that he didn’t mean to
have it spread beyond the pile. Based on previous precedent, it is clear that the fire needs to be
started with the intent that the fire will cause damage. While Cody may have shown a lack of
precaution by starting the fire and leaving it unattended, his lack of premeditated intent does not
make the act “malicious” in nature.
Based on the evidence presented in the interview, it is clear that the fire started by Cody
Young does not fulfill two key components needed to make him guilty of arson in the second
degree. Cody did not display the foresight needed to make the act willful or the intent to cause
damage needed to make the act malicious, thus he cannot satisfy the requirements of the charge in
question.
1
Memo Self-Editing Checklist
Autumn School of Global Legal Skills and Legal Writing 2020
Professor Kimberly Holst
I. Formatting & Instructions
• Did you follow all of the formatting guidelines: word or page limit, name in caption and
electronic filename, include page numbers, etc.?
• Did you include a proper caption (Memorandum, to, from, re, date)?
• Do you have headings for each section of the memo?
• Did you avoid orphaned or widowed headers?
II. Questions Presented
• Do you have a question for each issue or sub-issue discussed in the memo?
• Did you follow the under/does/when or similar structure?
• Do you include key facts and avoid legal conclusions in the question?
III. Brief Answers
• Do you have an answer for each question presented?
• Does the organization parallel the organization of the questions presented?
• Do you answer the question (probably yes/no)?
• Do you state the overarching rule?
• Do you describe how the answer will be resolved in our scenario (in this case…)?
IV. Facts
• Do you have all the legally relevant and necessary background facts?
• If you look at the facts used in the A1/A2 sections below, are all of the facts mentioned there
included in this facts section?
• Have you presented the facts in a narrative fashion with a logical organization?
• Do you have enough facts for the reader to understand the context in which this legal issue
takes place?
• Are the facts presented in an objective fashion?
• Are all legally relevant facts (even those that are unfavorable to your client) included?
V. Discussion Section
• Roadmap(s)—do you have an overarching roadmap for the entire discussion section? Do you
have mini-roadmaps for any subdivided issues?
• Do your roadmaps guide the reader through the organization of your analysis and include the
overarching rules for each major issue?
• CRAC your memo, i.e. in the left hand margin, mark each section of your draft with the
appropriate letter (C, R1, R2, A1, A2, C).
• Did you follow the proper structure?
• Are any sections missing or out of order?
• Is there any information in a section that does not belong, i.e. do you discuss the facts of your
case in a rule section?
• Do you have a point heading for each issue and sub-issue (if applicable)?
• Do your opening conclusions state your prediction with a “because” type statement for
support?
• Does the R1 state the fully synthesized rule—including any relevant statutory and case law?
2
• Does your R1 come from all binding authorities?
• Do your R2s illustrate the rule as it was articulated in the R1? Does the organization of the R2
section parallel the presentation of the rule in R1?
• Does each rule illustration contain the relevant facts, reasoning, and holding from the precedent
case or cases?
• Is the illustration solely focused on the legally relevant information for the particular rule (or
portion of the rule) from R1?
• Did you start your R2 paragraph with a rule-based (rather than a case-based) thesis sentence?
• Does the rule illustrations contain phrases, words, or ideas similar to the phrases, words, or
ideas in the rule statement?
• Did you provide enough information for the reader who has not read the case to independently
evaluate your illustration?
• Did you improperly address the facts of your case before completing the rule section?
• Did you anchor your R2 section using mandatory (binding) authority?
• Did you use persuasive authority only to supplement the mandatory authority?
• Does your A1 section focus on your client’s strongest arguments? Does your A2 section focus on
the opposing party’s strongest arguments?
• Do you use specific and direct analogical and counter-analogical arguments to connect your case
to the precedent cases from R2?
• Did you improperly use facts from a precedent that were not articulated in the R2 section?
• Did you analogize or counter-analogize to specific facts within a case rather than to the entire
case?
• Did you eliminate party names from the precedent cases and instead use labels or descriptors
that would be more helpful to the reader?
• Did you explain the relevance of any analogical statements?
• Did you start your A1/A2 paragraphs with rule-based thesis sentences?
• Does the organization of your A1/A2 section parallel the presentation of the rule in R1 and the
illustrations in R2?
• Have you focused on specific facts from your case instead of improperly relying on legal
conclusions?
• Did you use the same language in your A1/A2 that you used in your R1 and R2 sections?
• Did you set forth the necessary facts from the precedent case?
• Did you improperly force the reader to go back to the R2 section to understand your case
comparison?
• Did you state the necessary facts from your case that are analogous or distinguishable?
• Is the analogy or distinction improperly based upon a holding or legal conclusion instead of
facts?
• Did you conclude each CRAC paradigm with a conclusion that restates your prediction and
includes the key reasoning that supports your conclusion?
• Did you avoid mentioning cases in the conclusion to each CRAC paradigm?
VI. Conclusion
• Does your conclusion to the entire memo include your prediction and next steps or advice to
your supervising attorney?
3
VII. Writing, Grammar, and Citation
• Highlight every thesis sentence.
• Do your thesis sentences form a complete and accurate outline of your analysis?
• Does each thesis sentence focus on the main point of the paragraph (which should be focused
on the R1 or a portion of the R1)?
• Does each thesis sentence improperly focus on a case instead of a rule?
• Do all of the sentences that follow the thesis sentence relate to that main point?
• Do the thesis sentences guide your reader through your analysis?
• Read your draft for sentence structure and grammar.
• Is your memo written in the active voice?
• Do you avoid the use of multiple words when a single word will do? For example, do you state
“in lieu of” or “instead”?
• Does your writing include announcements that can be eliminated? For example, do you tell the
reader that you are going to discuss a particular case when you could simply begin the actual
discussion?
• Highlight transition words between sentences and between paragraphs.
• Do you overuse transition words? Are they the proper words to indicate the transition?
• Try to eliminate unnecessary repetition by asking yourself whether there are multiple sentences
that address the identical information.
• Have you identified prepositional phrases that could be eliminated or condensed?
• Do you have strong subject-verb units?
• Do you have any unnecessary or empty modifiers (clearly, obviously)?
• Have you avoided overusing quotations?
• Have you used short sentences?
• Have you avoided long and difficult to read paragraphs?
• Have you properly used singular pronouns to replace singular nouns (i.e. did you avoid using a
plural pronoun like they or them to replace a singular noun)?
• Does the memo contain all of the necessary information so that the reader can independently
analyze the issue?
• Have you properly cited to the statutes and cases using the Bluebook?
• Have you cited with sufficient frequency? (After every or almost every sentence in the R1/R2
sections, but not in the A1/A2 sections.)
• Have you used the correct citation format for the statute (electronic database v. printed
publication)?
• Have you used the correct long form (full) citation format for each case?
• Have you used the correct short form citation format for each case (short cite with or without
case name or id.)?
• Have you included the proper pinpoint pages?
• If you quoted language from the statute or cases, did you follow the proper Bluebook rules?