Comments on 5 Types of Argument and Briefs

I haven't read the Stacie Strong article. It hasn't been posted yet and I don't know when I'll have time to write a blog this weekend. Besides, I think I might be glued to the article once I start researching or writing, so I thought I'd make a comment on the 5 Types of Argument and the VIS winning briefs.

Regarding the 5 Types of Argument, I've got to say I wish I would've thought to look at it while I worked on my brief last spring. The sad thing is that our professor added it to our booklist, but I guess I've learned my lesson. Refreshing myself on the 5 types was good, but what I enjoy even more about this book is that it has strategies to attack those types of arguments and even combination arguments. I feel like I've been given a whole arsenal of weapons. Let's just hope I know how to use them well.

What has stayed on my mind so far is the author's discussion of how the legal career is like Socrates' deconstructive teaching. In our effort to define legal concepts, we destroy any and every definition put to us. Even though we don't do this alot in our presentations and briefs, we certainly do it as we prepare for them. We have to keep a balanced and impartial mind, and look at the issues from both sides. However, thinking of every way in which our arguments can be undone helps us stregthen them. So in the process of undoing, we do.

My first reaction upon looking at the briefs was, "Wow, I better get myself out of this mess before it gets any worse." But then I realized that although they seem lengthy, they are definitely nothing that we are not capable of doing, especially considering that about half of the brief is things like table of contents, references, etc.

But then again, isn't it more difficult to make an efficient, concise brief, than a lengthy and poorly written one?

Also, I noticed that every team had different styles. While some seemed to stick to dividing their arguments between procedural, jurisdicitional, and substantive issues, while the others divided it into its major arguments. You can also notice subtle cultural differences, when you read things such as, "request for relief" and "prayer for relief" in different briefs. Basically, this means we can do things our way and still win.

Looking forward to working with you guys and seeing what our work product will be. While it's easy to get competetive, I think it's best if we all keep in mind that our chances of winning at the VIS are only increased if we all help bring the best out of each other. Sounds cheesy, but if we really want to give UT international recognition, we have to remember it.


*Edit*

I enjoyed the Strong article because it's a nice refresher on how international arbitration is a distinct world with its own set of rules. An attorney must be prepared to work with all types of sources, and not focus as much on the caselaw. Pretty much, an attorney has to be more well-rounded.