How to Use Policy Arguments to Boost Your Legal Arguments
Using policy arguments in your legal writing can be tricky. Learn how to thread the needle with these tips for using policy wisely in your legal arguments.
Policy to us lawyers means reasons a decision-maker should decide a certain way that is not based strictly on legal authority like cases and statutes. This includes urging someone to act because of things like fairness or to make the court system more efficient.
Many legal writers fall on two sides of a sweet spot. On one side are lawyers who ignore policy and value arguments, believing them irrelevant or improper. Sometimes, maybe that’s so. But the science leaves no doubt that policy and our readers’ values influence their decisions. So ignoring this stuff is dangerous.
On the other side are legal writers who get that policy matters, but bang their legal readers over the head with it. These attorneys tell their readers all about how their client must win because of this or that policy, and why it would be “wholly” unfair and unjust for the other side to prevail.
Don’t fall into either of these traps. Yes, policy is important. Science tells us that. But obvious policy plays will annoy many lawyers, and especially judges. So choose your policy arguments with care. And deliver them subtly.
Consider three big ideas when it comes to policy.
Start with the law
Choose your policy arguments wisely
Normative Arguments
Arguments about shared societal values and goals that the law should promote.
Economic Arguments
Arguments that consider the monetary and objective consequences of a rule.
Institutional Competence
Arguments about the proper relationship between the courts and other branches of government.
Judicial Administration
Arguments about the practical effects on how courts will do business in
the future.
You may also want to consider that a series of studies shows people value future events more than equivalent events in the past. People in these studies, for example, required more compensation for events that would take place in the future than for identical events that had taken place in the past.
There is also reason to believe that policy and value arguments are on a spectrum—some are more likely to raise a legal reader’s hackles than others.
Objective policy may be the safest—and sometimes even welcome—form of policy or value argument. These include things like:
Next on the spectrum, welcome to some legal readers but less so to others, are theoretical legal frameworks. These include things like:
Subjective policy is where policy and values get the diciest. These are arguments like:
Finally, consider some other cognitive processes that might be relevant to subtly weaving in some policy (as well as to your theme). Many of these may be working against you, depending on the case. So considering them, and how you may want to counter them, can be powerful stuff.
Here is an example of an attorney deftly setting up an objective policy—misconstruing the law and creating unforeseen consequences:
Pick policies your particular reader will be receptive to
Don't hesitate