I'll be brief (no pun intended). If you are a lawyer or law student who wants to write better and more persuasive briefs - buy or borrow this book! I've completely changed my legal writing style after reading Judge Scalia and Garner's book.

If you are a practitioner seeking insightful wisdom from a Supreme Court Justice to improve your advocacy skills, this book is not for you. Those who have taken a basic legal writing and/or moot court course will not find any new information here. Essentially, the authors have compiled highlights from a legal writing textbook, added a few quotes from famous judges and a few examples from their own experience, and billed this as a book of wisdom. It appears that most of the book was written by co-author Bryan Garner, drawing on the material from his past publications on the same subject, with Justice Scalia merely placing his name on the cover in order to sell more copies. This is evident by comparing the writing styles of the co-authors when they disagree at a few points in the book. Garner's entries read like the rest of the book; Justice Scalia's entries read like one of his court opinions. Overall, if you are a practitioner, you likely already have a legal writing book stashed away in a box from law school that will serve you just as well.

Legal education does not end with the finishing of your law degree.
The challange begins when you prepare your first brief and stand before the Judge to argue your first case. If you are not prepared well and are not confident to appear before the Judge your mind may become blank. The Skill of Advocacy is acquired slowly as time goes by and you become confident day by day. A good command over the language of the Court is a must. Absolutely essential are also the General Principals of Argumentation as lucidly described by the Hon'ble Antonin Scalia & Mr. Garner in their wonderful book on advocacy popularly known as "The Art of Persuading Judges".

Sometimes it's easy to lose sight of common sense, and many of the things Mr. Garner and Justice Scalia point out as being helpful and persuasive are common sense. The book is organized nicely into small bits that make it an easy read. I'd recommend this to any attorney, or even to anyone who simply wants to be more persuasive in writing or speaking.

As a plaintiff's lawyer who also does appeal work, this book was very interesting but little is memorable after a few days. I'm glad I signed it out from the library instead of buying it. It's just a repete of basic (naive) advocacy principles. The image is that your judge will really conscientiuosly read things and be careful to rule properly. The book is very well-edited--so you won't read much of substance that is realistic or cynical--like about judicial intellectual dishonesty. Scalia gives no insight on how to get an honest opinion from an appellate court--how to keep appeals judges from ignoring things in the record (or making up things) just so they can come up with a very good-appearing opinion that is wrong because it has result-oriented oddities that only the parties' lawyers know about. Summary judgment (and more recently dismissal for failure to state a claim) have become procedural easy-outs that have created widespread dishonesty by judges who want to get rid of cases (usually because they are infatuated with defense counsel). Often defense counsel succeeds only because they loudly and assertively repeat their propaganda--and judges (or their staff) go right along (letting perception become reality). Also, de novo judicial review is in reality deferential to the trial judge (with unwillingness to reverse--finding any way possible (dishonest) to affirm).

There were some very good points--like not being lured into making concessions during oral argument. There might be one detail that prevents the judges from (honestly) ruling a certain way--so you could get a question that so temptingly and nicely tries to get you to agree with an innocuous point, etc. There is a great example of how the judges will write about such a concession in their opinion. Another good point is Scalia's belief that whatever doesn't help your case hurts it (i.e., don't fill your briefs, etc. with unhelpful things).

There could have been some mention of realities like that most judges and staff never in their lives had to prosecute a civil case (or have any burden of proof) or deal with defense counsel in a contentious manner (e.g., trying to get discovery through a motion to compel)--and how to work with that in the justice system (those judges and staff).

I also didn't like Justice Scalia's pompous "dissents" on some points by Bryan Garner. They stand out in hindsight as ugly parts. It appears that Bryan Garner did the heavy lifting in writing the book.

Nothing like reading thoughts from the country's greatest legal mind of this century...Antonin Scalia is amazing.

The seller was prompt and the books were received in a very timely manner. Thanks a lot . . . would definitely do business with you again!

This book condenses an advocacy course down to it's most helpful points. It is a quick easy read and many of the points can be put to use right away. Other points are aimed towards improving one's advocacy over his lifetime. The book made good use of anecdotes and hypotheticals to illustrate more complicated points.

While the book is a little pricey for its size, it is definitely worth the money.

I gave this book to my personal attorney. He can and is authorized to argue a case before the Supreme Court. Like me, he looks up to Antonin Scalia as great judge. What Judge Scalia says in the book is helpful to all new lawyers who will have to litigate cases. This book should be included in the curiculum for future lawyers.

The book has been prepared by two outstanding writers who have the experience and expertise to advise on not only persuading judges, but for application in all walks of life. It is an application of legal psychology and intensely practical. It is recommended to all legal practitioners as a desk-top reference in legal case and court work, as well as other persons who have the need to persuade in matters of daily life.

I'm no attorney, but I am preparing a Small-Claims Court case involving $500. Admittedly about as far from the Supreme Court (Justice Scalia) as you can get, but still the same general idea. "Making Your Case" provided an excellent set of ideas for both structuring my presentation and keeping in mind in any ensuing arguments.

Most of the book is intended for real attorneys, and my impression is that they too will benefit - particularly the material on making appeals, citing precedent cases, and how to NOT impress judges.

"Be particularly skeptical of advice on how to argue an appeal from appellate judges.... [M]ost judges give good advice on how to win a winning case. They all say to focus on the statute in a statutory interpretation case, to discuss the facts fairly and objectively, to describe the holdings of any controlling cases. Good advice if the statutory language is helpful, the facts support your position, and the precedent leans your way; perhaps not so good advice if the opposite is true. Judges have no interest in the court reaching a 'wrong' result, but fifty percent of client's do."

John G. Roberts, Jr. (now Chief Justice Roberts), Thoughts on Presenting an Effective Oral Argument, School Law in Review 1997, at 7-1.

This book gives a great review and insights into the process of persuading judges at all levels. It is a must-read for every new lawyer, and an interesting and valuable resource for even the most experienced practitioner.

A good (quick) read overall. The majority of the advice is pretty orthodox, but there are some very interesting isolated topics throughout the book, including the sections on the logical sequencing of writing and Garner's push to move substantive citations away from the text.

My only exposure to the courts has been the unfortunate experience of defending various complaints from my ex that continue to be served even to this day, 10 years after the divorce. So I'm no attorney and most of the time I've been in a courtroom, I'd gladly have been somewhere else. But still, when I'm not feeling trapped in the details of my personal situation, I've found the workings of the court and how motions and trials are decided to be quite fascinating. I'm an engineer, but I think the (sometimes) logical world of law might have been fun. The significance of some of Scalia's book, e.g., the minutiae of whether to use contractions, was probably lost on me. But I bought it based on some enticing interview snippets in the WSJ Law Blog and I was definitely not disappointed.

I enjoyed the insight it offered into just how the whole thing works and found myself agreeing, on a number of occasions involving, surely, the more obvious points, that I'd noticed precisely that same thing myself but hadn't been sure to what degree it might be generalized. It explained things. I found lots of good advice that I'm sure will be portable to the far more ordinary life I lead having nothing to do with the law but a lot to do with getting along with people around me and, on occasion, trying to persuade them to my point of view.

I also had a great time. The book was waiting for me Friday evening when I got home from work and by Saturday evening, I'd finished it completely. Along the way, I learned a lot and I also laughed a lot, out loud, probably every 4 or 5 minutes, at some new, insightful and humorously phrased observation about life or the law.

My only exposure to the courts has been the unfortunate experience of defending various complaints from my ex that continue to be served even to this day, 10 years after the divorce. So I'm no attorney and the significance of some of Scalia's book, including, e.g., the minutiae of writing complete sentences as subheadings and whether to use contractions, was probably lost on me. But I bought it based on some enticing interview snippets in the WSJ Law Blog and I was definitely not disappointed.

I enjoyed the insight it seemed to offer into just how the whole thing works and I found lots of good advice that I'm sure will be portable to the far more ordinary life I lead having nothing to do with the law but a lot to do with getting along with people around me and, on occasion, trying to persuade them to my point of view.

I also had a great time. The book was waiting for me Friday evening when I got home from work and by Saturday evening, I'd finished it completely. Along the way, I learned a lot and I also laughed a lot, out loud, probably every 4 or 5 minutes, at some new, insightful and humorously phrased observation about life or the law.

We all need to make arguments. Whether it is something as benign as trying to decide where to have lunch or something as serious as whether Mom needs to be place in an enhanced care facility, we need to be able to think, write, and speak clearly about what we want to do. How do we form the argument? Does our order of presentation matter? What should we know about the person or board we are presenting to?

This little book by Justice Antonin Scalia and Bryan Garner is written for lawyers who go before judges, but almost everything in here can be easily translated into everyday life. The craft of a lawyer is just a special case of the kinds of reasoning, arguing, disputing, and presenting we do almost every day of our lives.

Do not think this is a book on Scalia's judicial philosophy. The authors point out several times that you must know the philosophy and predilections of the judge you are going before and adjust your arguments accordingly. They also remind the reader several times that they are writing for lawyers presenting to judges and not advice they would give judges.

The book consists of 115 little chapters that run from a single paragraph to a few pages. These are divided into four broad groups: General Principles of Argumentation, Legal Reasoning, Briefing, and Oral Argument. While these last three are clearly legal terms, you can simply thing of them as Building Your Argument, Presenting Your Argument Through Concise Writing, and Arguing Your Case Verbally. Isn't it obvious how you can use these things at work, in your community, and even within your social settings?

While we normally associate legal writing with dry as dust and inscrutable prose, this book is light, lively, and has nice touches of humor. The authors cite wonderful authorities on language, argument, presentation, writing, and speaking and provide a nice list of works for additional reading at the end. There is also a helpful index to find just the sections you are looking for.

I think this book is terrific and have placed with my very favorite references on writing and language. If you care what I think, you should get this book, read it, and enjoy the benefits of these talented and brilliant minds.

Reviewed by Craig Matteson, Ann Arbor, MI

Considering the author, this book, good or bad, is a necessary read. Justice Scalia sits on the highest court in the land and has for 20 some odd years. There are many interesting points and even a bit of humour just to show the court is human. Making your case is a lesson in human interaction, we're all human and thus on equal footing, if you have a case to make, make it. Be concise, understand the judge has read your brief and is not stupid(?!) don't pick your nose or chew your nails lol.

You do not have to be a Lawyer in order to appreciate the value of this exceptional book. I found it to be informative, educational and worth reading more than once. Well done!

It seems, rather obviously, that those who have rated this book poorly have done so out of disdain for one of the authors. I too share that disdain for said author - nonetheless I find this to be the most informative book I've read all year. And, having just finished my first year of law school, I have read quite a few informative books in the past year. A number of those books happened to deal with the very subject matter that this book deals with, and all I can say is that I wish this book had been available at the beginning of my second semester, rather than at the end of it.

Straight-forward, easy to read, logically presented, and (most importantly) insightful. This should be required reading for any first year law student, or anyone who has already completed their first year of law school but has not yet read it (up to and including those nearly ready to retire from the practice of law). Seriously, it is that good.

The book contained nothing a high school student would not know. A complete rip off.

Whether or not you agree with Justice Scalia's opinions from the Supreme Court, this book as a primer on briefs and oral argument is excellent. I wish that I had this book for moot court. The brief writing section was far better than any of the books I had to help me. The oral presentation section identified solutions to problems that frustrated me. If you are not a lawyer you will likely find the oral argument section interesting and helpful, but find the minutia of the brief writing section boring. As a lawyer, I will reread this book from time to time.

Justice Scalia recognizes there are other viewpoints; he discusses them but then explains why his view is better.

The book presents all viewpoints and follows with their own and why theirs is better. For example, the book points out that although they believes underlining is a crude throwback to the typewriter , Bluebook approves the use of underlining. The book states that underlining is unnecessary in the 21st century with a word processor. They follow with suggesting that Bluebook should be revised. The book suggests using italics where you would have used underlining. They add that very limited use of italics is far better than liberal use. Justice Scalia's differences of opinions extend to his coauthor.

Bryan Garner, author of Garner's Modern American Usage, The Elements of Legal Style and editor in chief of Black's Law Dictionary did not agree with Justice Scalia on all points. Some section headings state a definite rule, followed by "or not." For example: "Consider using contractions occasionally--or not." These sections take the form of majority opinion vs. minority opinion. Mr. Garner's opinion is presented, Justice Scalia follows with his opinion and his analysis on why Mr. Garner was wrong and why Justice Scalia is right.

The book is organized logically, and with brevity.
The book in its 245 pages discusses:
* the general purposes of oral argument,
* legal reasoning, brief writing, and finally
* the crafting of the oral argument itself.

It discusses these topics more thoroughly than some books that are three times its size. Subsections have a clear heading and to the point discussion. Most subsections, although fully treated, are one to two pages long, some less than a page.

Finally
The book shows how to tailor your arguments for a singular audience, the judge, distinguished even from arguing before a jury. It gives tactics to use with difficult judges, lazy judges, and their law clerks. It gives the view from the bench when the lawyer reacts to bad questions from the judge. It describes the likely outcomes, and it offers way to avoid confrontation, while still making your argument. It is a good book.

I bought two copies of Making Your Case. One for me and one for my son who is an attorney. My son read the entire book while traveling. He called me from his destination and said "Thanks, mom, I will be using this book as a reference book!" I am planning on attending law school and am enjoying the insight that Justice Scalia offers.

This is an excellent book which deals in a comprehensive way with many issues arising in legal practice. It contains a concise set of rules on how to present a case effectively. Although the book is aimed at American lawyers and is based on the American legal system the advice contained therein would apply equally to other legal systems.

This excellent book is concise and entertaining. Nothing stuffy or boring in this read. The "a-ha" moments jump out on every page. Very informative and certainly useful for every new attorney.

Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, of the U.S. Supreme Court, has broken his media silence to talk on camera in order to hawk a rule book (115 rules to be precise) that he's written with Bryan Garner, his sycophantic co-author whose claim to fame is as the author of "Modern American Usage" and the "Elements of Legal Style".

The title of the book is "Making your case - the Art of Persuading Judges."

Perhaps it's too stern a standard to expect any public figure, much less a Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, to tell us how it all really works - and trust me you won't find out reading this book. You'd get much more out of listening to Justice Scalia's interviews promoting his book.
There are, however, some interesting anomalies for the alert observer.
At the very outset, Justice Scalia advises us, of a judge's "human proclivity to be more receptive to argument from a person who is both trusted and liked" (p. xxii).

You may recall the accusation that Justice Scalia was more "receptive" to Vice President Cheney's argument before the Supreme Court, when our Vice President refused to disclose information about his energy task force.

Justice Scalia appeared to "trust" and to "like" Cheney. Justice Scalia even went duck hunting with the Vice President while the Sierra Club's appeal demanding disclosure was pending before the Supreme Court. Justice Scalia then wrote a 21-page "not-to-worry" broadside saying that many Supreme Court Justices get their jobs "precisely because they were friends of the incumbent president or senior officials." But does that resolve the Justice's "human proclivity"?

Having said relationships matter, Judge Scalia then says in this same rule book, in seeming contradiction, that "emotions" have no business in oral argument. This is jarring when it comes from one of the more passionate Justices in our lifetime. In Rule 17 (p. 31), Justice Scalia nevertheless warns against making "a blatant appeal to sympathy or other emotions" because such an "overt appeal" is "resented" by judges. Perhaps Justice Scalia's warning is against "blatant" appeals, rather than against an emotional appeal that is artfully executed. After all, experience and common sense teach us that it's a bad advocate who doesn't know how to use emotions as well as reason.

Judge Scalia purports to rely on Aristotle, among other classics, as source material, but Aristotle's Rhetoric (see Book II) expressly teaches us that "emotions" do matter. Aristotle wrote that "rhetoric exists to affect the giving of decisions" and "[t] he emotions are all those feelings that so change men as to affect their judgments..."

Aristotle directs every advocate to "to bring his hearers into a frame of mind that will dispose them to anger ..." or any other "emotion" that favors the preferred outcome.

Justice Scalia also teaches that an advocate must "master the relative weight of precedents" (Rule 26)(p. 52). But how do you master what is disregarded or unprecedented by a court? This is a legitimate controversial area of advocacy that is entirely overlooked in this rule book.

When the Supreme Court intervened, in its 5-4 decision, in 2000, making Governor George Bush the President over VP Al Gore, by stopping the recount in the Florida primary, the decision was unprecedented.
The dissenters called it an intrusion into what was and should have been resolved by state law; Associate Justice Breyer quoted Brandeis who wrote: "The most important thing we do is not doing."

When correspondent Lesley Stahl recently asked Justice Scalia on CBS's Sixty Minutes if the decision in Bush v. Gore, ending the Florida recount favoring Bush, wasn't more about politics than judicial philosophy, Justice Scalia passed up the opportunity to teach us, just as he did in his rule book, and said instead "get over it. It's so old by now."

(If court opinions invited indifference or irrelevance by their age, then why is it that Justice Scalia can't "get over" a much older Supreme Court decision, Roe v. Wade, from 1973, recognizing a woman's right of privacy?)

More critically, how does any advocate learn to argue to a court, any court, with a political agenda that disregards precedent?
Justice Scalia also encourages an undemocratic tone and his rules, if followed, would tamp down zealous advocacy.

Justice Scalia instructs deference to the Court, and that is fine as far as it goes, but he also tells advocates that they should appear as a "junior" colleague, and as one "explaining the case to a highly intelligent senior partner" (rule 18, p. 33). I beg to differ. No advocate should be considered an inferior before any court in a democracy. No advocate should need to consider himself (or herself) in any other way than respectful and competent. I believe most courts and justices agree and prefer a competent advocate to inform their discretion, and not some lackey who is too humbled before the court to be zealous for his client.

Consider Abe Fortas' appearance before the court in 1962, when he argued that Clarence Gideon had a right to have counsel appointed to represent him. The argument was collegial and collaborative. Indeed, President Johnson later nominated Mr. Fortas to become an Associate Justice, and thus a true colleague to the other Justices.

You also have to take issue when Justice Scalia discourages "indignation" in an advocate even when a client has been mistreated, and counsels against accusing opposing counsel of "chicanery" even if true, and discourages any argument that highlights the willful distortion by a lower court judge (rule 19, pp. 34-35).

Justice Scalia doesn't blunt his own zealous advocacy as a Justice. He has written opinions that referred to the other Justices' opinions variously as "sheer applesauce", "absurd", "implausible speculation", and "self-righteous." Should an advocate before the Court be more constrained than a Justice?

Perhaps it is harsh to treat this as a rule book for the experienced counsel, or to judge it by that standard, and I kept coming back to the judgment that this was a book that required more ignorance or innocence to sustain a reader's interest.

In truth, Justice Scalia's opinions are richer and more robust and instructive in advocacy by their example than anything you'll find in this rule book.

So don't buy the book. If you really want to know how to be an advocate, read your Aristotle.

I heard Scalia, a little man who has a bullying personality, interviewed about this book on radio. He lamented the use of contractions which, he felt, diminished the "eloquence" of judicial opinions. If he's not smart enough to know that the impoverishment of opinion expression, not just judicial, is due to the vapid reasoning of our current leaders and their crippled expression, then he's certainly not smart enough to offer suggestions on how to be persuasive. It's clear to anyone familiar with Scalia's dogmatic sensibility that as regards many important matters facing this country, his mind has already been made up. As a loyal member of Opus Dei, he is committed to denying reproductive rights to women and doing everything he can to diminish any vestiges of tolerance and humanity which the legal system should nourish. In public appearances he continues to be glib and insulting, inviting not arguments that might persuade him but similarly clever one-liners that are the standard of his sophistry.

What many trial lawyers forget is that in order to win at trial, you have to not only persuade a jury, but the trial judge and appellate court. This book should be on the book shelf of every trial lawyer. Written by the undisputed expert in the field of legal writing (Bryan Garner)and one of the most famous Supreme Court Justices, the reader is treated to wonderful insights about how to persuade judges.

Are you a lawyer looking for a way to write a more concise, logical and persuasive brief? Are you looking for a better way to argue your points at a hearing? Wouldn't you like to know what judges are looking for when they read your brief and listen to you in court? Of course. This book is authorative, fascinating, insightful and easy to read.

This book is a fantastic product by America's wittiest Justice and one of the foremost legal writers today (Bryan was entrusted with revising the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure).

It is really a product that means different things to two different audiences. First, it serves as an exemplary checklist for the legal advocate. No matter what forum an attorney appears in - your local town adminstrative agency all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, this functions as a comprehensive checklist of things that we were taught in law school - and promptly forgot.

For the lay person, it offers more than just a highly entertaining read. First it demystifies the judicial process for a public whose perceptions of the justice system have been unfortunately based on half-baked Hollywood products, from L.A. Law to Ally McBeal.

But in the classical sense, it is also a treatise on decision making, rhetoric, and the balancing we all perform as humans. In this, it follows, perhaps consciously, the great classics to which it repeatedly alludes.

A great read.

Simply the best book on legal persuasive writing ever written.

Interesting, useful, fun, full of great anecdotes. Terrific discussion of statutory interpretation. Great references to scholarly classical treatises on rhetoric. This book is wonderful both for its analysis of oral argument and for its discussion of written forms of persuasion, like briefs. I wish I had had it earlier.

My only complaint is the same one I have with virtually all modern style manuals: they advocate a simplistic prose style, characterized by short, conversational sentences, avoiding unusual words, eschewing Latin phrases. But I personally often find prose that breaks these rules a refreshing change. I enjoy reading a word or phrase I rarely see but that is perfectly chosen. And I enjoy learning new words or phrases. This book would condemn two of the greatest legal prose stylists out there: John Marshall and Learned Hand, both of whose opinions often contained sentences that would not work so well conversationally, that were full of long, convoluted sentences and classical allusions. My sense is that in this joint work Justice Scalia, who can write rich and interesting prose, pushed back against some of the simplifying strictures of his co-author.

Furthermore, I think that often too much emphasis on simple words and sentences serves to make more complex ideas too difficult to express or to understand. Thus, the book (like most books) argues against "jargon," but jargon, once learned, is often a much clearer way of expressing something than a rephrasing.

And the Roe v. Wade anecdote is great! It explains a lot...

In any case, I am hardly qualified to criticize Justice Scalia, whose writing is far beyond my own. Anyway, this is a great book.

Lawyers please read this book. Not just for your edification; but for the benefit of the rest of us too.

Why do so many people think lawyers are jerks? Perhaps it's got something to do with the way lawyers are trained that leads some of them to believe that arrogance, rudeness and boorishness are the trifectas of success in their profession.

Apparently judges of all ilks - all the way up to Supreme Court Justices, have seen more than their fill of nasty advocate's behavior in their courtrooms. So have I.

For the past five years I've trained trial lawyers, and some of the behavior I've seen inside courtrooms has not just been appalling, it's been stupid. As a non-lawyer, I must say that the vast majority of lawyers are not deserving of the stereotype they've been tagged with. However, there's a tiny minority whose nasty words and deeds more than compensate for the polite professionalism of the majority of their peers.

Attention All Jerks: This book is for you. The most important aspect of this book may be the one you want to ignore; but pay attention to the primary theme that runs throughout it: Your spiteful, oafish and intemperate behavior in court, damages your prospects of winning. You aren't just harming your client. Your income is taking a beating too.

Although this book is packed with invaluable advice for litigators and transactional lawyers alike, there is no more important advice than in this sentence from the Introduction: "Your objective in every argument therefore, is to show yourself to be worthy of trust and affection."

Look, again at that sentence. Is there any business or profession in which that lesson would not be valuable? In fact, is there any business or personal relationship in which that lesson would not be valuable? That is why this book should be read by all advocates for any cause.

If every lawyer in this country - and the world, read this book and fully absorbed the power of that one simple lesson, the profession might begin to alter its image, which as been around since, well, at least since Dick the butcher voiced an attractive sounding idea in Henry IV, part Two, "The first thing we do, let's kill..."

I am not a lawyer, but I love reading about persuasion and influence. This book caught my attention out of left field, but it certainly added a lot of value to my understanding of persuasion from a logical and argumentative point of view.

Most of the books I've read on persuasion focus on the emotional appeals that move people and mention that you need to give a rational argument for the decision so the persuadee can feel good about it. This book teaches you how to make that rational argument, but it does more than that. It teaches you how to frame the argument before it is made so that it will be more persuasive when it is made. The portion focused on the development of the syllogism was particularly interesting.

Definitely a book that you will want to read whether your are in the legal arena or not - if you want to know how to influence and persuade.