ILNews

'Posnerian' wisdom featured in professor's new book

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

It’s no secret judicial clerks help with writing opinions at some point in the process – whether it’s the research, writing a first draft, reading and writing memos to judges on their drafts, or in some cases rewriting the judge’s first draft or outline into a final draft.

However, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Richard A. Posner insists on writing his own opinions, leaving more time for his clerks to do research and criticize his drafts instead of the other way around.
 

Richard Posner Posner

Some have noticed his distinct writing style, including a Valparaiso University School of Law professor who has compiled some of the judge’s most notable writing into “The Quotable Judge Posner: Selections from Twenty-Five Years of Judicial Opinions,” released in May. The book is available online from Amazon.com and in some Chicago-area bookstores.

Professor Robert F. Blomquist said he has been focusing on Judge Posner’s opinions since 2000 after reading many of them for his coursework teaching torts, environmental law, and national security law.

“I always found opinions that were reproduced in casebooks from Judge Posner to be particularly illuminating. They cut to the heart of the matter,” he said.

Blomquist has written about Judge Posner’s

majority, concurring, and dissenting opinions.

“I thought the dissenting opinions were particularly incisive and penetrating. … He called the majority to task for sloppy, and sometimes political, reasoning,” he said.

Another academic who has also noticed Judge Posner’s opinions is Supreme Court of the United States justice nominee Elena Kagan, who Blomquist quotes in his introduction.

“‘Judge Posner does not know how to write dull opinions,’” the Harvard Law School dean wrote for the Harvard Law Review in 2007. “‘In part this is a matter of style.’ Thus, ‘Posner’s aphorisms, his sardonic humor, his colorful voice, make all his opinions interesting to read.’”

In 2006, Blomquist saw a book called “The Quotable Einstein,” which, he said, “made a light bulb go off” to consider compiling quotes from the judge’s opinions for a book not only for lawyers and law students, but also for anyone with an interest in the law. He got a contract with State University of New York Press in May 2006, and for about two years during summers and his free time during the school year, he worked with research assistants to compile a collection of highlights. He ultimately read about 2,250 opinions.

His first draft was about 600 pages of typed text, which was ultimately cut down to about 220 pages of quotes covering a range of categories including American society, civil rights, criminal law, evidence, habeas corpus, military law, prisons, trials, and of course, “Posnerian Wisdom.”

Judge Posner also agreed to write a forward to the book, which he wrote was “not to echo the too-generous praise of my judicial opinions that Professor Blomquist gives in his introduction, or even to thank him for the enormous labor he has undertaken in preparing this book,” but to explain why he thinks it’s important for appellate judges to write their own opinions.

As Judge Posner told Indiana Lawyer, the reason he writes his own opinions is “I like to write, it’s the fun part of the job for me.”

Another reason as to why it’s not the best idea for judges to have clerks write for them, he said, is because most judges only have their clerks for a year, so there’s turn over and therefore a steep learning curve every year.

“When they start, they’re not experienced opinion writers. But if a judge writes his own opinions, over the years he gains experience and can write faster than a clerk could. And if the law clerks are not writing opinions, they have more time for research,” he said.

He added that in the writing process, the writer might change his mind as to what he would like to include in the opinion.

“Writing is a stimulus to thinking,” he said. “I may realize some issues need to be addressed in different ways than I initially thought.”

If a law clerk notices something that should be changed, she is more reluctant to acknowledge the difference, he added. If a judge tells a clerk the opinion should be reversed, but the clerk disagrees, she “probably won’t come back and say, ‘I don’t think we should reverse.’”

Voice is also important in writing opinions.

“Every writer has his own voice and you can learn a lot about a person – not just a judge – from what he says and how he says it. A reader can get a better sense of where a judge is coming from if he or she is writing his or her own opinions,” he said.

On the other hand, “clerks write in an informal, impersonal way,” because they don’t want to include their own voice in the opinion.

While the judge said he understands why other judges might prefer to have their clerks write for them – especially if the judge isn’t a very good writer – there is a spectrum of how judges write opinions.

“Some judges write a rough first draft and the law clerk rewrites it, so it still includes more of the judge’s work than the clerk’s. The converse to that is when the law clerk writes the first draft and the judge rewrites it,” he said.

“I’m on the end of the spectrum with only a few other judges,” he added. “I write the first draft and give it to my law clerk for criticism and research, and the clerk writes me a memo with his or her suggestions on what should be changed. Then I do another draft. I control the writing but I get a lot of help from the clerk, including notes about any errors that need to be corrected.”

He said that for a judge to write his own opinions isn’t necessarily a sign he’s more intelligent than the clerk.

“Sometimes the law clerks might be smarter than the judges,” he said. “I’ve had law clerks smarter than I am. Sometimes … the clerk might be faster at writing opinions … but that doesn’t mean the judge isn’t bringing his experience to the job,” he said.

That includes experience of judging and writing opinions.

“I think I’ve improved at this … I like to pare down the facts to the essentials and present them in a way to give a very clear picture on what the case is about,” he said. “… I try to make sure I include all the points I think are important, and I try to be economical.”

He also doesn’t include footnotes – if something is important enough to be included he works it into the opinion, and he said he tries to avoid jargon, which he said “often operates as a substitute for thought.”

“Very early on, a law clerk for another judge told me that his wife who’s not a lawyer enjoyed reading my opinions. I thought it would be nice to write opinions that lay people could read. … I try to put everything into ordinary English,” he said.•

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

ADVERTISEMENT