“Moreover, the explosive touch of humour is considered just as bad taste as the hard sock of condemnation. I know no field of learning so vulnerable to burlesque, satire, or occasional pokes in the ribs as the bombastic pomposity of legal dialectic. Perhaps that is the very reason why there are no jesters or gag men in legal literature and why law review editors knit their brows overtime to purge their publications of every crack that might produce a real laugh. The law is a fat man walking down the street in a high hat. And far be it from the law reviews to be any party to the chucking of a snowball or the judicious placing of a banana-peel.”
There is neither passion nor courage in legal writing. As Professor Rodell laments, “There are two things wrong with almost all legal writing. One is its style. The other is its content.”
Goodbye to Law Review is a must-read for anyone who would take writing seriously. Fat Man Law will try to see how that can be done without getting serious.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhile there is no doubt that legal writing does not attach importance to any attempt at humour, rejection of anything witty as an unwanted inclusion is slightly disturbing. For instance, Professor Rodell's own analogy about the law being a fat man, and it being no part of the law reviews to take into account the placing of a banana peel evokes a kind of appreciation for it being something bordering on humour.
ReplyDeleteIt is thus a humble submission that though importance should not be attached to attempts at humour, the law should not be rigid to discard all attempts at wit. It is but a part of the dynamism of law to be positively responsive to change. If the legal content does not suffer as a result of humour, there probably is no harm in welcoming a change in legal writing for the wittier.