Courts

Judge Tells Twitter Shareholders To Git Gud Before Their Next Class Action Filing

Remember: the goal of legal writing is to help your case.

By  
on
973995

“I feel bad for whoever has to read this!” – The Plaintiffs

Legal writing really is the diamond in the rough of law school. Of course you want to have a good handle on your doctrinals, but it isn’t much help if processing your sentences is like hearing pots bang on the floor. Good legal writing flows well. Great writing legal writing leaves the reader feeling as if the conclusions reached are as obvious as the sunrise or the Chicago Bears not winning the next Super Bowl. On the other hand, bad writing can get a judge pissed off at a whole class of litigants. From Law360:

A California federal judge ripped shareholders of X — formerly known as Twitter — for sloppy legal writing in their proposed stock-drop class action over alleged cybersecurity misrepresentations, but said he’ll give some claims another chance, provided the shareholders use “common sense” and follow a “simple formula” when drafting their amended complaint.

In a 41-page ruling filed Friday, U.S. District Judge Mark C. Scarsi excoriated lead plaintiff William Baker and his attorneys at the Rosen Law Firm PA for saddling him with a rambling, confusing complaint that took “months” to decipher.

Specifically, Judge Scarsi said the complaint forced him to flip back and forth among hundreds of paragraphs to connect statements from Twitter’s former executives about the social media platform’s cybersecurity protocols to evidence allegedly showing those claims were false.

Months to read 41 pages?! Is it really that hard to produce evidence and arguments about an app that was known for its character limits? When in doubt, go by the Men in Black Noisey Cricket rule — write in a way that is sleek, compact, and packs a punch. Few things take the power out of writing quite like having to backtrack hundreds of paragraphs to understand a sentence. This is a legal brief, not the Alberti cipher.

As easy as it would be to just be to just make fun of Baker, the lion’s share of the responsibility probably falls on the attorneys at Rosen. I know small firms have it rough, but is it really that hard to put the stuff that tries to prove that former Twitter executives said false things next to the things you allege are false? Save your reader some work here! If you want a judge to rule in your favor, the least you can do is prevent them from having to connect the parts of your filing like they’re reading the Flip-O-Rama section of a Captain Underpants comic.

Do better, people.

Judge Warns X Investors Not To Repeat Rambling Filing [Law360]

Sponsored

Chris Williams became a social media manager and assistant editor for Above the Law in June 2021. Prior to joining the staff, he moonlighted as a minor Memelord™ in the Facebook group Law School Memes for Edgy T14s.  He endured Missouri long enough to graduate from Washington University in St. Louis School of Law. He is a former boatbuilder who cannot swim, a published author on critical race theory, philosophy, and humor, and has a love for cycling that occasionally annoys his peers. You can reach him by email at cwilliams@abovethelaw.com and by tweet at @WritesForRent.

Sponsored

Topics

, , ,