The intended audience for this book is foreign law students & practitioners who need to communicate professionally with U.S. based English-speakers. However this short and hastily (read sloppily) edited text provides nothing new or valuable. The book itself did not necessarily shape itself to the particular needs of non-U.S. law students or practitioners and the advice seemed generic and at times patronizing. Overall I was completely underwhelmed.
Chapter 8, Part IV: Editing in Nadia Nedzel’s Legal reasoning, research, and
writing for international graduate students (2012), and the CALI Lessons on Punctuation and Grammar,
are in my opinion preferable resources for learning U.S. Legal Grammar than
Fandl’s Chapter 3.
Fandl’s 2 pages of bulleted and numbered lists provide the
reader with tips and an outline for writing a letter to a client (including a
statement, 3c., on p. 31 containing the first of several typos that I,
unfortunately, noticed in this book on professional legal writing). This was
followed by 5 pages of detailed explanations and blurry greyscale screenshots illustrating
how to use specific features of MS Outlook. That this is not a problem
specific to a foreign audience, is demonstrated by the existence of the ABA
Publication The Lawyer's Guide to Microsoft®
Outlook 2010 (2012). For a generic understanding of professional email
drafting, Lee, Hall, & Barone’s American Legal English: Using
Language in Legal Contexts (2007) provides email writing tips and
activities starting on p. 184.
A particularly disappointing chapter, not only is it so
mundane as to merely echo the basic tenets in any legal writing text without
adding anything that would be of particular value for a foreign audience, but vague
and imprudent advice is given in the section on research strategy. Fandl instructs
readers to start with secondary sources, but makes no mention of using them to
find references to the most relevant primary sources. He also provides an example of how the user
should search LexisNexis® to find relevant statutes and case law by doing a
broad jurisdiction specific keyword search. Not only is that an ineffective way
to search LexisNexis®, for topic specific primary law, but his description of
how to do that search is unclear. For superior instruction on drafting legal
memoranda and case briefs and for general in-depth explanations of U.S.
research techniques aimed at a foreign audience, again, I point you to Lee, et
al. (2007) and Nedzel (2012).
The editor seems determined to make the use of these
exercises as difficult as possible for the reader.
At the end of each exercise is one of two statements
intended to lead the user to the sample answer. The reader is told either
"Suggested solutions can be found in Appendix A" or "sample
<insert noun here> can be found in Appendix B".
In each Appendix the materials are lettered [A] etc.
This creates the frustrating experience of trying to flip
back and forth between the text of the exercise and the Appendices, trying to
find the right solution. If it was difficult for a native English speaker, how
much more challenging must it be for someone speaking English as a Second
Language (the supposed target audience of this book).
This whole fiasco could have been avoided in two simple
1. Put the solutions to exercises on the page after the
2. Provide actual page numbers when directing the reader to
a sample document in Appendix B.
The index did not have page numbers, instead referring the
reader to a chapter and a lettered section, sometimes followed by a numeral for
a subsection. This method is useful for a loose-leaf publications but
unnecessarily confusing for a book that has page numbers.
This book attempts to teach the reader a strange combination
of skills related to professional U.S. legal writing. The writing lessons in
Chapter 3 are nothing that could not be gleaned from a fair read of Strunk
& White’s The Elements of Style (2012) or the relevant chapter
section in Nedzel (2012). The legal writing exercises in Lee, et al. (2007) are
more appropriate for the audience, easier to use, and with more than twice the
content, it’s less than half the price of Fandl’s book.
If Fandl’s ethnocentric and misleading title (which could
have been corrected by adding the words “in
the United States”, See eg. Deborah
H. McGregor & Cynthia M. Adams, The International Lawyer's Guide
to Legal Analysis And Communication in the United States) rubbed me the
wrong way when I first cracked the book open, the lack of organization of the answers
to the exercises proved the death knell.
I give this book two thumbs down for being a waste of
perfectly good trees. But don’t take my word for it. Here’s an earlier
draft freely available online in non-tree killing pdf format.