Applying New Rhetoric to Legal

Discourse: The Ebb and Flow of

Reader and Writer, Text and Context
Linda L. Berger

New Rhetoric believes that writing is a process for constructing thought,

not just the "skin" that covers thought.1 The process of making meaning is
messy, slow, tentative, full of starts and stops, a complex network of language,
purposes, plans, options, and constraints.' Its outcome is uncertain: "Compo-
sition requires choosing all along the way, and you can't choose if there are no
perceived alternatives... ."
The rhetoric of legal discourse believes that writing is a process for con-
structing belief, not knowledge. 4 The process of making arguments is clear,
orderly, linear, objective, and rational. Its outcome is "highly predictable: the
lawyer is always right and his adversary is always wrong.... If the argument is
effective.... [i] t 'follows' like the night follows the day."5
In contrast to the methodical march of legal discourse, New Rhetoric charts
an uncertain course: when you leave home, you will not know your route, your
destination, or your time of arrival.6 Nonetheless, New Rhetoric promises
teachers and students a powerful alternative for embarking on legal discourse,
a disorienting and open-ended back-and-forth exploration that can help law
students develop the habits of mature legal readers and writers. This explora-
Linda L Berger is an assistant professor at ThomasJefferson School of Law.
I owe special thanks to the good readers who read and responded to earlier versions of this
article; to Ilene Durst, who introduced me to the work of Erika Lindemann and Mina Shaughnessy,
and to Rick Ghan, who provided helpful research assistance.
1. See Ann E. Berthoff, The Making of Meaning: Metaphors, Models, and Maxims for Writing
Teachers 69 (Montclair, 1981).
2. This description is drawn primarily from the following: Janet Emig, The Web of Meaning:
Essays on Writing, Teaching, Learning and Thinking 4 (Upper Montclair, 1983); Maxine
Hairston, The Winds of Change: Thomas Kuhn and the Revolution in the Teaching of
Writing, 330C. Comp. & Comm. 76,85 (1982); Linda Flower, The Construction of Negotiated
Meaning: A Social Cognitive Theory of Writing (Carbondale, 1994).
3. Berthoff, supra note 1, at 75.
4. Sanford Levinson, What Do Lawyers Know (And What Do They Do with Their Knowledge)?
58 S. Cal. L Rev. 441,455 (1985).
5. Gerald Wetlaufer, Rhetoric and Its Denial in Legal Discourse, 76 Va. L. Rev. 1545, 1558-59
(1990).
6. Nina Schwartz, Conversations with the Social Text, in Reclaiming Pedagogy. The Rhetoric of
the Classroom, eds. Patricia Donahue & Ellen Quandahl, 60, 63-64 (Carbondale, 1989).

Journal of Legal Education, Volume 49, Number 2 (June 1999)

 JournalofLegal Education

tion requires the reader and writer within each student's head to engage in a
reflective conversation with one another and with what they read and write.
During the conversation, the student-as-reader-and-writer continually negoti-
ates meaning through a series of transactions. Through transactions between
reader and writer; prior texts and this text; the individual and the context; first
drafts and next drafts; this word and another; purposes, plans, and goals;
constraints, conventions, and options, writing constructs thought and thought
constructs writing.' Only for so long as both the student-as-reader and the
student-as-writer remain willing to reflect and respond can the conversation
continue.' Only for so long as the conversation continues can the reader and
writer negotiate conflicts and make choices to reach the tentative resolution
of second thoughts.' By using the ebb and flow of reader and writer, text and
context for reflection and response, law students can experience the emer-
gence of meaning and judgment over time."0

I. New Rhetoric and the Law School Setting

New Rhetoric began in theory about the nature of writing and the relation-
ship between thought and language. The rhetorical theory was supported by
the results of research describing the writing processes of experts. Backed by
theory and research, New Rhetoric teachers began to focus their teaching on
what writers "do" rather than on what writers "know," believing that what
writers do is how they come to know."

A. New Rhetoric Theory

In the New Rhetoric, writing is a process for creating knowledge, not
merely a means for communicating it. 2 In the New Rhetoric, reading is a

7. Thus, dialectical processing is not only a cause of but also the result of reflective thought. See
Marlene Scardamalia & Carl Bereiter, Development of Dialectical Processes in Composition,
in Literacy, Language, and Learning, eds. David R. Olson et al., 307, 327 (New York, 1985).
8. See Chris M.Anson, Response Styles and Ways of Knowing, inWriting and Response: Theory,
Practice, and Research, ed. Chris M. Anson, 332, 338 (Urbana, 1989) [hereinafter Writing
and Response].
9. Linda Flower has suggested that rather than the relatively undirected process of conversa-
tion, the construction of meaning should be viewed as the more goal-directed process of
negotiation. See Flower, supra note 2, at 65-75.
10. Although the teaching practices suggested here were developed for use in a legal writing
course, they can be used in any course that incorporates legal reading and legal writing. For
suggestions on teaching legal reading and legal writing throughout law school, see Philip C.
Kissam, Thinking (by Writing) About Legal Writing, 40 Vand. L. Rev. 135 (1987); Leigh
Hunt Greenshaw, "To Say What the Law Is": Learning the Practice of Legal Rhetoric, 29 Val.
U. L Rev. 861 (1995); Peter Dewitz, Reading Law: Three Suggestions for Legal Education, 27
U. Tol. L. Rev. 657 (1996); Carol McCrehan Parker, Writing Throughout the Curriculum:
Why Law Schools Need It and How to Achieve It, 76 Neb. L. Rev. 561 (1997).
11. The field that became known as composition studies "was transformed when theorists,
researchers, and teachers of writing began trying to find out what actually happens when
people write .... The goal has been to replace a prescriptive pedagogy (select a subject,
formulate a thesis, outline, write, proofread) with a descriptive discipline whose members
study and teach 'process not product.'" James A. Reither, Writing and Knowing: Toward
Redefining the Writing Process, 47 C. Eng. 620 (1985), reprintedin The Writing Teacher's
Sourcebook, 3d ed., eds. GaryTate etal., 162,162 (NewYork, 1994) [hereinafter Sourcebook].
12. Berthoff, supranote 1, at 68-69.
 Applying New Rhetoric to Legal Discourse

process for constructing meaning, notjust an Easter egg hunt to find it.' As a
rhetorical theory, New Rhetoric thus goes beyond the "process" approach. Its
linchpin is not that writing should be taught as a process but instead that the
process should be used to make meaning.
Other rhetorical theories located thought and knowledge somewhere out-
side of or before "writing." "Writing" was not the weaving of thought and
knowledge through language, but the clothing of thought and knowledge in
language.14 For New Rhetoricians, however, "knowledge is not simply a static
entity available for retrieval. Truth is dynamic and dialectical, the result of a
process involving the interaction of opposing elements." Knowledge and truth
are created by the process, rather than existing outside the process. The
elements of the communication process--writer, audience, reality, language-
"do not simply provide a convenient way of talking about rhetoric. They form
the elements that go into the very shaping of knowledge."' 5
This knowledge-shaping process is complicated-an active "putting to-
gether" of meaning between reader, writer, and text, all of which are embed-
ded in context and language.' 6 In contrast, the traditional model of reading
and writing was a straightforward act of decoding: the writer began with a
main idea, the reader found and followed it, and both could agree on the
point of the piece.' Although the knowledge-shaping process is more com-
plex and demanding, it opens up reading and writing and makes them less
forbidding. By acknowledging that neither reading nor writing begins in
clarity, New Rhetoric assures students that the confusion is not in them, but in
the process. At the beginning, reading and writing do and should confuse
things.' 8 Not until we are forced to reread and rewrite what we have read and
what we have written do we come to any clear understanding."
Despite their initial agreement that reading and writing construct mean-
ing, New Rhetoricians began to disagree about whether the site for that

13. The construction of meaning depends not only on the reader's knowledge and experience.
"[W] hen readers construct meaning, they do so in the context of a discourse situation, which
includes the writer of the original text, other readers, the rhetorical context for reading, and
the history of the discourse." Christina Haas & Linda Flower, Rhetorical Reading Strategies
and the Construction of Meaning, 39 C. Comp. & Comm. 167 (1988).
14. See Emig, supranote 2, at 4.
15. James A. Berlin, Contemporary Composition: The Major Pedagogical Theories, 44 C. Eng.
765 (1982), rprintedinSourcebook, supra note 11, at 9, 17. Other rhetorical theories located
truth elsewhere: classical rhetoric "in the rational operation of the mind," positivist rhetoric
"in the correct perception of sense impressions," and neo-Platonic rhetoric "within the
individual, attainable only through an internal apprehension." Id.
16. See Anthony R Petrosky, From Story to Essay- Reading and Writing, 33 C. Comp. & Comm.
19, 22 (1982); David Bartholomae & Anthony 1R Petrosky, Facts, Artifacts and Counterfacts:
Theory and Method for a Reading and Writing Course 12, 15 (Upper Montclair, 1986).
17. Many students prefer this more straightforward view they "expect knowledge or information
to be given to them rather than taking an active role in obtaining or shaping that knowl-
edge." Katharine Ronald, The Self and the Other in the Process of Composing- Implications
for Integrating the Acts of Reading and Writing, in Convergences: Transactions in Reading
and Writing, ed. Bruce T. Petersen, 231,235-36 (Urbana, 1986) [hereinafter Convergences].
18. See Bartholomae & Petrosky, supra note 16, at 21; Schwartz, supra note 6, at 62-63.
19. See Bartholomae & Petrosky, supranote 16, at 19, 21.
 Journalof LegalEducation

construction is primarily within the individual or primarily within a social

context. Their disagreement started in cognitive science, which had deter-
mined that people naturally learn language and acquire thought patterns to
organize and interpret their experience, but that interaction with society
modifies a person's thought patterns and language use. 2 As cognitive re-
search indicated a more profound influence by social processes, New Rhetoric
divided into two groups. One group views writing as primarily inner-directed,
the other as primarily outer-directed. "Inner-directed theorists seek to dis-
cover writing processes that are so fundamental as to be universal."21 Outer-
directed theorists believe that "thinking and language use can never occur
free of a social context that conditions them"2 2 and that knowledge therefore
23
is a "social construction."
Flowing from their theoretical differences, the two groups' research inter-
ests also differ: the inner-directed school observes the composition and cogni-
tion processes of individual writers; the outer-directed school analyzes the
conventions of particular discourse communities. 24 Each school has criticized
the other's theory, research, and practice.25 The theory and research of the
inner-directed group, which set out to study and describe writing processes,
can be transformed into trying to prove thata universal "good" writing process

20. See Patricia Bizzell, Cognition, Convention, and Certainty What We Need to Know About
Writing, 3 PRE/TEXT 213, 214-15 (1982).
21. Id at 215.
22. I&at 217.
23. James A. Berlin, Rhetoric and Reality:. Writing Instruction in American Colleges, 1900-1985,
175-76 (Carbondale, 1987). Rather than an outgrowth of New Rhetoric, social construction
can be viewed as a countertheory. One author describes the beginning of New Rhetoric
research in the early 1970s as a turning point in composition theory. At that point, the field
turned away from "questions ofvalue and the figure of the writer in a social context of writing
to questions of process and the figure of the writer as an individual psychology." David
Bartholomae, Writing with Teachers: A Conversation with Peter Elbow, 46 C. Comp. &
Comm. 62, 68-69 (1995). The "displacement of the social and . . . celebration of the
individual," Bartholomae writes, runs through all the subsequent strains of composition
theory, research, and curriculum development. Id.
Some recent theories appear to draw on insights from both schools. For example, Linda
Flower has suggested a "pedagogy of literate action" that would bring together the social,
cognitive, and rhetorical strands and focus on the writer "as an agent within a social and
rhetorical context." Flower writes that a literate action is "a socially embedded, socially
shaped practice," and at the same time "an individual constructive act that embeds practices
and conventions within its own personally meaningful, goal-directed use of literacy," and,
because it is both social and individual, "a site of conflict among multiple goals, alternative
goods; and opposing shoulds [that] calls for negotiation among unavoidable constraints,
options, and alternatives." Literate Action, in Composition in the Twenty-first Century: Crisis
and Change, eds. Lynn Z. Bloom etal., 249 (Carbondale, 1996) [hereinafter Composition in
21st Century].
24. See Bizzell, supra note 20, at 218. The inner-directed composition research used scientific
research patterns and practices; Bizzell proposed instead a rhetorical analysis of discourse
community practice, noting that then-recent developments in philosophy, literary criticism,
and composition agreed on the centrality of discourse or interpretive communities. See id.at
239.
25. See, e.g., Lester Faigley, Competing Theories of Process: A Critique and a Proposal, 48 C.
Eng. 527 (1986).
 Applying New Rhetoric to LegalDiscourse

exists2" and that it can be taught as "a lockstep series of stages that students
MUST go through in a predetermined and rigid fashion." 27 The outer-
directed school, which set out to study and describe discourse conventions,
can be transformed into trying to institutionalize "the way we do things here"28
or to label students as "insiders or outsiders, as people who either have the
requisite values, knowledge, and skills to belong, or lack these necessary
qualifications."2"
Although the divide between the inner-directed and outer-directed schools
was the widest, college composition theory also divided along lines drawn by
different views of which elements in the composition process were the most
important. Expressivists emphasized the writer's personal expression through
language; 31 rhetoricians were most interested in the transaction between
reader and writer through language; thejournalistic approach sought a corre-
spondence of language with reality; formalists emphasized formal language
traits in the text; the epistemic perspective emphasized transactions between
the writer, language, and reality;3 2 and social construction emphasized the
context for writing through collaborative writing techniques3 3 and immersion
within simulated or real discourse communities.'
B. The Research
According to its proponents, New Rhetoric not only was philosophically
attractive but also was supported by research into writers' composing pro-
cesses' 5 By the 1980s, research was said to have verified what the theorists had

26. Bizzell, supra note 20, at 234-35; see also Steven Schreiner, A Portrait of the Student as a
Young Writer. Re-evaluating Emig and the Process Movement, 48 C. Comp. & Comm. 86, 87
(1997).
27. Anne Ruggles Gere, Narratives of Composition Studies, 3 Legal Writing 51, 54 (1997).
28. Jessie C.Grearson, Teaching the Transitions, 4 Legal Writing 57, 70 (1998).
29. Marilyn M. Cooper, WhyAre We Talking About Discourse Communities? Or, Foundationalism
Rears Its Ugly Head Once More, in Writing as Social Action, eds. Marilyn M. Cooper &
Michael Holzman, 202, 204-05 (Portsmouth, N.H., 1989).
30. These categories are derived from Kenneth Dowst, The Epistemic Approach: Writing,
Knowing, and Learning, in Eight Approaches to Teaching Composition, eds. Timothy R.
Donovan & Ben W. McClelland, 65, 66-69 (Urbana, 1980) (hereinafter Eight Approaches];
and Richard Fulkerson, Four Philosophies of Composition, 30 C. Comp. & Comm. 343
(1979), eprinted in Sourcebook, supra note 11, at 3, 3-6.
31. The expressivist perspective is associated with concepts such as writing without teachers and
"free" writing. See, e.g., Peter Elbow, Writing Without Teachers (New York, 1973).
32. The epistemic and expressivist perspectives often intertwine, particularly in the strategies
proposed for invention. For example, prewriting is presented as "a journey of discovery
through language to discover one's thoughts and feelings," Emig, supranote 2, at 18, or as a
way that writing can lead to "something else," thoughts the writer never knew were in -the
writer's head, Berthoff, supra note 1, at 38.
33. Lisa Ede & Andrea Lunsford, Let Them Write-Together, I Rhetoric Rev. 150 (1983),
r7qintedinThe St. Martin's Guide to Teaching Writing, 2d ed., eds. Robert Connors & Cheryl
Glenn, 427 (NewYork, 1992).
34. Cf. Cooper, supra note 29, at 205.
35. The "meaning-making" view of writing appeals to those who view reading and writing as ways
to live, notjust asways to make a living. Such teachers fall within whatJanet Emig calls a "tacit
tradition" that indudes the beliefs that the "learner/writer... is an active construer of
meaning in her transactions with experience"; "that almost all persons can write and want to
 Journalof Legal Education

taken as an article of faith: "writing creates situations in which students can

learn to think.""6

1. The Composing Process

The early composition research led to a common finding: for the expert
writers studied, the writing process is exploratory, recursive, reflective, and
responsive. Specifically, the research indicated that "writing is an act of discov-
ery" for many expertwriters; they do not know what theywant to saywhen they 3 7
begin to write, and their meaning develops intuitively as they continue.
Second, the writing process is not a smooth linear progression from begin-
ning to end, but instead is "messy, recursive, convoluted, and uneven." 8
Progress is unsteady and can be very slow. 3 9 Neither is writing a methodical
movement from small to large or from large to small: writers "as frequently
work from wholes to parts as from parts to wholes" and they leap back and
forth between local concerns about words and global concerns about the
shape of the total piece.4" Finally, experts reflect on their emerging text and
respond to individual, textual, and social context: the writing process differs
by author as well as by purpose, format, and audience, and it changes depend-
ing on what problems arise in a particular text.4
As a result of the research, new models of the composing process charted
cognitive activities, rather than stages of production, and arranged these
activities as a recursive hierarchy.42 Thus, rather than a linear step-by-step
write; that not writing or not wanting to write is unnatural; that, if either occurs, something
major has been subverted in a mind, in a life." The Tacit Tradition: The Inevitability of a
Multi-Disciplinary Approach to Writing Research, in Reinventing the Rhetorical Tradition,
eds. Aviva Freedman & Ian Pringle, 9, 17 (Conway, Ark., 1980) [hereinafter Reinventing].
The first composing process research was published by Janet Emig, The Composing
Processes of Twelfth Graders (Urbana, 1971). Emig's research is viewed as the "single most
influential piece" of composing process research because its method, assumptions, and
conclusions influenced all subsequent research. See, e.g, Stephen M. North, The Making of
Knowledge in Composition: Portrait of an Emerging Field 197 (Upper Montclair, 1987).
Beginning with Emig's work, composition research borrowed the use of thinking-aloud
protocols and cued-recall techniques from cognitive psychology. Unlike examination of a
writer's notes and drafts, protocols in which the writer thinks aloud while writing "bring[] us
suddenly closer to the act of writing and yield a rich if unsifted body of data about the
development of meaning." Linda Flower & John R. Hayes, Images, Plans, and Prose: The
Representation of Meaning in Writing, I Written Comm. 120, 123 (1984). Protocol analysis
has been controversial both because it tends to affect what is being observed and because it
can lead to self-fulfilling prophecy when the researcher and the subject share expert knowl-
edge, as when English teachers are the subjects of the protocols. See Bizzell, supra note 20, at
235.
36. Elaine P. Maimon et al., Thinking, Reading, and Writing 3 (New York, 1989).
37. Hairston, supra note 2, at 85.
38. Id
39. Emig, supra note 2, at 141.
40. Id at 140.
41. Id
42. The best-known cognitive process model does not specify any natural order of proceeding
through the composing process but rather tries to identify the subprocesses that are included
at some point. See Linda Flower &John R. Hayes, A Cognitive Process Theory of Writing, 32
C. Comp. & Comm. 365 (1981). This model has been criticized for containing "the same
 Applying New Rhetoric to Legal Discourse

evolution of a written product, the cognitive process model depicted "elemen-

tary mental processes" which in turn were composed of subprocesses in a
hierarchical structure." In this model, the writer moves recursively and oppor-
tunistically from one subprocess to another as the writer "attends to" one
concern or another.'"
As composition research continued, its findings heightened and broad-
ened the role of "planning" and "revising." Researchers found that expert
planning occurs not only at the beginning of a writing project and not only as
a way to think about what to say. Instead, planning continues throughout the 45
writing project as experts monitor and map both their text and their goals.
The plans themselves are an "object for reflection and open to review, revi-
sion, and consolidation."4" Planning recurs because the expert stops to moni-
tor the writing, to engage in "the purposeful act of representing current
meaning to oneself." 47 Planning occurs "in response to a social and rhetorical
context, on a problem that develops duringthe act of writing"; equipped with
greater knowledge of available plans and the willingness to monitor and
change, experts can and do respond strategically.48
Similarly, for the experts studied, revision occurs not only at the end of a
writing project and not only as a way to think about how to say what you
planned to say. Like expert planning, experts say revision is constant, recur-
sive, reflective, and responsive. 49 In retrospective interviews, professional writ-
writing activities" as linear models and for its treatment of writing "as a set of containers into
which we pour meaning." Bizzell, supra note 20, at 220-32.
The cognitive process models have been criticized for other reasons. First, they are based
primarily on observations of professional writers, and, as the authors of one article suggested,
"tt]he contribution of writing to thought is quite possibly a contribution enjoyed only by the
highly literate few." Scardamalia & Bereiter, supra note 7, at 309. In addition, because of the
research methods used, no models have accounted for pretextual revision, that is, revision
that takes place before there are words on paper. See Stephen P. Witte, Revising, Composing
Theory, and Research Design, in The Acquisition of Written Language: Response and
Revision, ed. Sarah Warshauer Freedman, 250, 263-64 (Norwood, N.J., 1985) (hereinafter
Acquisition].
43. See Flower & Hayes, supra note 42, at 367-68.
44. See Nancy I. Sommers, The Need for Theory in Composition Research, 30 C. Comp. &
Comm. 46, 47 (1979). Researchers found that individual writers differ in their uses of the
subprocesses and that use of the subprocesses differs depending on the task. See Arthur N.
Applebee, Writing and Reasoning, 54 Rev. Educ. Res. 577,582--83 (1984).
45. The researchers cast doubt on three popular planning images: the "blind-leap scenario"
from "unpremeditated knowledge to text"; the "step-by-step march of ideas into words"; and
the easy flow of "freewriting oneself from prose to thought." Flower & Hayes, supra note 35, at
156-57.
46. Linda Flower et al., Planning in Writing: The Cognition of a Constructive Process, Technical
Report No. 34, 50, Center for the Study of Writing (Berkeley, 1989), reprintedinA Rhetoric of
Doing- Essays on Written Discourse in Honor ofJames L- Kinneavy, eds. Stephen P. Witte et
al., 181 (Carbondale, 1992).
47. Flower & Hayes, supranote 35, at 124.
48. Flower et al., supranote 46, at 48-51.
49. Like other studies of the composing process, revision studies have been criticized for
assuming that the process can best be understood by comparing expert revision with amateur
revision. Witte, supra note 42, at 255.
Unlike the contemporaneous read-aloud or think-aloud protocols used in reading and
composing studies, most revision studies have been based on retrospective interviews with
 Journalof Legal Education

ers described revision as composed of significant recurring activities, with

different levels of attention and a different agenda for each cycle.50 Even
though this description coincides with more traditional views of revision,5 it
differs in its depiction of the writer's continuing willingness to view the whole
writing'as up for review and to make changes at all levels.5 2 Like planning,
revision recurs throughout the writing project because the expert is better
able to monitor and reflect: experienced writers imagine a reader who is
"partially a reflection of themselves and functions as a critical and productive
collaborator-a collaborator who has yet to love their work." s By imagining
this reader, the experts can stand outside their writing to "re-view" it. Like
planning, revision occurs in response to a social and rhetorical context;
experts adjust the extent and manner of revision to their purpose, format,
audience, medium, genre, length of task, length of text, and familiarity with
the subject, audience, and purpose.'
2. Connections Between Reading and Writing
Seeing a similar constructive process, some writing teachers turned to
reading. In addition to a constructive view of reading itself,"5 theorists pro-
posed and some research supported a transactional relationship between

writers, see Nancy Sommers, Revision Strategies of Student Writers and Experienced Adult
Writers, 31 C. Comp. & Comm. 378 (1980), or on physical evidence of the effects of revising,
Lester Faigley & Stephen P. Witte, Analyzing Revision, 32 C. Comp. & Comm. 400 (1981).
50. Because first drafts are usually exploratory, expert revision aims first to find the form or
shape of the argument. During later cycles of revision, experts may be more concerned with
style but do not forget about form. Sommers, supranote 49, at 386-87. Another study found
that compared with students, experts revised more while writing a first draft, made more
meaning changes between the first and second draft, and made more surface changes
between the second and third draft. Faigley & Witte, supranote 49, at 407-09.
51. Witte notes that although many professional writers speak of revision as important, necessary,
and recursive, they also usually "depict revising as something writers do after producingsome
writtenproduc4 a description that reinforces the traditional, linearview of composing. Witte,
supra note 42, at 254-55.
52. Even though most expert writers' changes occur at the sentence level, experienced writers
make changes at all levels and use a wider range of revision techniques. Sommers, supranote
49, at 386-87. Although the experts in a subsequent study made fewer changes than students,
they made more changes in meaning. Faigley & Witte, supranote 49, at 407-09.
Thus, the most notable difference between expert and student revisers has been described
as "the willingness to write multiple drafts and to make major changes while composing."
Most student revision is "meaning-preserving," suggesting that students believe that "the
meaning to be communicated is already there." In contrast, professional writers use revision
"as part of the ongoing process of invention-that is, as a technique forproducingmeaning."
Bartholomae & Petrosky, supra note 16, at 167 (footnote omitted).
53. Sommers, supra note 49, at 385.
54. Faigley & Witte, supra note 49, at 410-11.
55. New Rhetoric composition theory and critical literary theory rarely acknowledge each other,
but critical literary theory and the outer-directed school of composition theory share the
concept that "[olur reading and our writing alike are made up, constructed, by the intersec-
tion of models, paradigms, sign systems, and conventions mediated by our culture." David
Kaufer & Gary Waller, To Write Is to Read Is to Write, Right. in Writing and Reading
Differently: Deconstruction and the Teaching of Composition and Literature, eds. G. Dou-
glas Atkins & Michael L.Johnson, 66, 67-68 (Lawrence, 1985).
 Applying New Rhetoric to Legal Discourse

reading and writing.-6 Research showed a moderate general correlation be-

tween reading and writing achievement; the transfer of some values, behav-
iors, and lessons from one process to the other; and the integration of each
57
process in the successful performance of the other.
The most striking parallel was the finding that both better readers and
better writers are more able to suspend judgment, to reflect on current
meaning, and to respond to the context within which they read and write.5,
Expert readers "formulat[e] better questions and solutions about the unfold-
ing text and continually monitor[] their success or failure in constructing
meaning in or from print."s9 Because of this reflective quality, better readers
and writers learn more from experience and add to their ways of understand-
ing new reading and writing.' The attention that experts give to monitoring
and reflection is mirrored by the attention they pay to rhetorical context.
While student readers focus mostly on "knowledge-getting," expert readers
construct a rhetorical situation, trying to imagine a real author with a specific
purpose, the context within which the writing occurred, and the actual effects
on the audience." While student writers concentrate on "knowledge-telling,"
conveying content and information, expert writers work within a rhetorical
framework that includes "imagining audience response, acknowledging con-
2
text and setting their own purposeful goals."1
3. Expert-Novice Research
As cognitive research supported the New Rhetoric view of reading and
writing, composition teachers and theorists became interested in other kinds
of cognitive research. 5 One result was the split between the inner-directed
and the outer-directed schools, which derived in part from cognitive research
into the effects of individual experience and social context on learning and
thinking.

56. See, e.g, Robert E. Probst, Transactional Theory and Response, in Writing and Response,
supra note 8, at 68, 74-75; Marilyn S. Sternglass, Introduction, in Convergences, supranote
17, at 1. In theory, a transaction differs from an interaction because it is a "dynamic process"
in which all the elements in the transaction are transformed. Louise M. Rosenblatt, View-
points: Transaction Versus Interaction-A Terminological Rescue Operation, 19 Research in
the Teaching of English 96, 100-01 (1985).
57. See RobertJ. Tierney & Margie Leys, What Is the Value of Connecting Reading and Writing?
in Convergences, supranote 17, at 15, 17-26; Sternglass, supranote 56, at 1 (quoting an early
draft by Bruce Petersen).
58. June Cannell Birnbaum, Reflective Thought: The Connection Between Reading and Writ-
ing, in Convergences, supra note 17, at 30, 31. Reflective behavior is used here in the sense of
monitoring current meaning and adjusting goals, ideas, plans, or strategies when it appears
the reader or writer was mistaken; it is the ability to think about a process in process. See
Ronald, supra note 17, at 234.
59. Birnbaum, supra note 58, at 30.
60. Id.
61. See Haas &Flower, supranote 13, at 176-78.
62. Id. at 182 (quoting Carl Bereiter & Marlene Scardamalia, Cognitive Coping Strategies and
the Problem of Inert Knowledge, in Learning and Thinking Skills: Research and Open
Questions, eds. Susan Chipman et al., 65 (Hillsdale, 1985)).
63. Maimon et al., supra note 36, at 161; see also Kurt M. Saunders & Linda Levine, Learning to
Think Like a Lawyer, 29 U.S.F. L. Rev. 121, 142 (1994).
 Journalof Legal Education

Both schools agreed, however, on an important finding from the cognitive

research into problem-solving: that is, that the patterns we impose on what we
see as we "compose" are formed from prior transactions, whether those
transactions are individually or socially situated.4 Problem-solving research
seeks to better understand how people learn to solve problems within a
particular domain (such as law, for example) by focusing on the differences
between expert and novice behavior in that domain. The research attempts to
discern both what and how knowledge: that is, what experts in the field know
that is different from what novices know and how experts in the field do things
differently from novices.
The major finding of expert-novice research is that "expertise consists
mainly of the acquisition of a large repertoire of knowledge in schematic
form."65 That is, as a learner moves from novice to expert, gaining both
knowledge and experience, the learner develops patterns or frameworks
called schemas to integrate and structure that knowledge and experience.6
Although what makes a person an expert is very specific to the field in which
she is an expert, the differences in how experts and novices act have been
found to be similar across various fields. Across the board, experts show
greater use of stored schemas and self-reflective techniques, and they draw on
a broader range of strategies appropriate to their domain. That is, novices
learn and recall terms, structures, and rules, but do not know how to organize
and apply the knowledge, while experts can use stored schemas to solve
problems. "Novice thinking is elemental and structured around concrete
pieces of knowledge in a domain, while expert thinking is global and relates to
abstract, higher order principles and procedures."'7 Finally, experts more
carefully monitor and evaluate how they are doing as they move through a
problem and make changes that improve their problem-solving performance.
Seen from this perspective, much of the composing process research can
be seen as expert-novice research into how expert writers write. From this
perspective, the research has left the gap of what expert writers know, a gap
that the social construction school has already identified.' Like expert-novice
research in general, New Rhetoric research assumes that experts do things the

64. Much expert-novice theory is based on Piaget's theory of intellectual development. "Piaget
proposed that knowledge is highly organized, that learning involves assimilation of new
experience to one's previous knowledge, and that intellectual development is not a passive
incorporation of information but an active construction on the part of the knower." David
Moshman & Bridget A. Franks, Intellectual Development: Formal Operations and Reflective
Judgment, in Maimon et al., supra note 36, at 9, 13. The central tenet of Piaget's position,
which he called constructivism, is "that individuals construct their own knowledge during the
course of interaction with the environment. Each new scheme is constructed through the
coordination of earlier schemes. Such coordinations take place when the environment
presents challenges that cannot be resolved using available schemes." Id.at 12.
65. Gary L. Blasi, What Lawyers Know: Lawyering Expertise, Cognitive Science, and the Func-
tions of Theory, 45J. Legal Educ. 313, 342-43 (1995).
66. See Saunders & Levine, supra note 63, at 140-41.
67. See Blasi, supra note 65, at 348.
68. See Bizzell, supra note 20, at 231 (the cognitive process model describes the form of the
composing process, but not the content, which is knowledge of the conventions of discourse
communities).
 Applying New Rhetoric to Legal Discourse

right way and that if only novices were to use those expert processes, they
would become better readers, writers, and thinkers.69 If those assumptions are
true, teachers should focus on helping students reflect on and respond to
what they read and write."

C. UsingNew Rhetoric in Law School

To sum up before going on, New Rhetoric started with a theory that writing
was a process for the making of meaning. Research into the composing
process supported that view and formed the basis for a cognitive process
approach to teaching writing. The process approach subdivided into two
schools: one of them believed that individual processes were the most impor-
tant to the making of meaning, and the other believed that social processes
were the most important. Cutting across these two schools were differing
perspectives on the nature of writers and writing.
Some New Rhetoric theory, teaching approaches, and perspectives have
been applied in law school settings.James Boyd White was one of the first to
talk and write about legal reading and legal writing as processes for construct-
ing meaning.7' Beginning in the mid-1980s, the process approach was intro-
duced in legal scholarship generally and to the legal writing community in
particular. 72 That New Rhetoric theory and teaching approaches would be
embraced by anyone who teaches in a law school is in some ways remarkable.
For one thing, the kind of written composition rhetoric now common in
college classrooms is much less privileged in law school classrooms, one of the
few places left where students still arguably engage in oral rhetoric. 3 Second,
the heart of New Rhetoric theory directly contradicts much of the rhetoric of
law. In the rhetoric of advocacy andjudicial opinion, the lawyer and thejudge
are committed to "the closure of controversies" and "the one right (or best)
answer to questions and the one true (or best) meaning of texts." 4 Third,
even if New Rhetoric makes sense for personal expressive writing, it is easy to

69. For example, Hairston writes that the most interesting results from the research are the
"profound differences" between expert and novice behavior, suggesting and assuming that
"[t]his kind of information enables us to construct a tentative profile of the writing behaviors
of effective writers." Hairston, supra note 2, at 86.
70. As noted earlier, the use of reflective techniques is an important indicator of better readers
and writers. More generally, self-monitoring and reflective change are signs of a "good
learner." See Paul T. Wangerin, Learning Strategies for Law Students, 52 Alb. L. Rev. 471,
477 (1988).
71. See The Legal Imagination: Studies in the Nature of Legal Thought and Expression (Boston,
1973); Doctrine in a Vacuum: Reflections on What a Law School Ought (and Ought Not) to
Be, 18 U. Mich. J.L. Ref. 251, 252-53 (1985); Heracles' Bow Essays on the Rhetoric and
Poetics of the Law 40-44 (Madison, 1985).
72. Process approaches to legal writing were introduced at the Legal Writing Institute's first
biennial conference in 1984. SeeJ. Christopher Rideout &JillJ. Ramsfield, Legal Writing: A
Revised View, 69 Wash. L. Rev. 35, 53 (1994).
73. In nearly all college curricula, composition rhetoric has replaced oral rhetoric. See RobertJ.
Connors, Teaching and Learning as a Man, 58 C. Eng. 137, 142 (1996).
74. Wetlaufer, supra note 5, at 1551-52.
 Journalof Legal Education

identify differences in purpose, audience, and conventions that make some of

its approaches less appropriate for some kinds of legal writing.7'
On the other hand, a theory of reading and writing as knowledge-produc-
ing coincides with other views of the lawyer's job and the law school's role. A
lawyer is supposed to generate alternatives about what the language of the law
means and aboutwhether particular facts satisfy its requirements. The lawyer's
creation and testing of alternatives will be foreclosed if closure and certainty
arrive too soon. Moreover, if generating alternatives is a necessary part of
learning to read, think, and write critically, it must also be a necessary part of
any legal education.
Furthermore, New Rhetoric's focus on transactional relationships between
reading and writing seems particularly appropriate for adaptation to law
school. Because law students think and write almost exclusively about what
they have read, making connections between legal reading and legal writing is
unavoidable, if largely unnoticed. Similarly, the expert-novice research spurred
by New Rhetoric may provide guidance for teachers of legal reading and legal
writing. This research suggests, for example, that law students may more
quickly become more expert as legal readers if their teachers base some of
their instruction on expert behavior." Expert-novice research also indicates
that even though expertise itself "seems not to travel well," 77 certain aspects of
expert behavior, that is, how experts do things, may be similar across disci-
plines.7' The findings of New Rhetoric research into how expert Writers write
may describe generally how expert legal writers write.
In addition to areas where adaptation seems appropriate, New Rhetoric has
identified large gaps for research in legal discourse. Although legal reading
processes have been studied, little research has focused on legal writing
processes.79 Even less has been done to describe the content of expert legal
writer knowledge, from the research processes they use, to the schemas and
scripts they build, to the discourse conventions they follow. If "[w]riting,
reading and inquiry are collaborative, social acts," 80 the student as legal reader

75. The cognitive process approach starts too late for law school because it begins with inventiton.
Beginning with invention assumes that the student has all the knowledge she will need within
herself and that all she needs are the techniques to express it. The beginning lawstudent has
little such knowledge, and so teaching legal writing should begin with the processes of
reading and inquiry common to lawyers.
Similarly, social construction focuses on the conventions of discourse communities, But
discourse communities are knowledge communities. Thus, even though a student must learn
the conventions of a particular discourse community to be viewed as an "insider," he must
first acquire its common knowledge. For law students, that common knowledge comes from
reading the law.
76. See, e.g., Saunders & Levine, supra note 63, at 142.
77. Joseph M. Williams, On the Maturing of Legal Writers: Two Models of Growth and Develop.
ment, I Legal Writing 1, 13 (1991).
78. See Blasi, supra note 65, at 354.
79. Legal writing teachers "fervently believe that learning legal reading and writing involves the
acquisition of unique cognitive processes and skills," but they "cannot point to formal
empirical evidence verifying the uniqueness."James F. Stratman, The Emergence of Legal
Composition as a Field of Inquiry. Evaluating the Prospects, 60 Rev. Educ. Res. 153, 210
(1990).
80. Reither, supra note 11, at 166.
 Applying New Rhetoric to Legal Discourse

and legal writer will need to know more about the social processes that both
influence and constrain the lawyer's writing process and the lawyer's written
product."
After New Rhetoric became standard in college composition scholarship,
the field was said to have entered the "first stages of a paradigm shift," a
movement away from the then "current-traditional" product theory of teach-
ing writing to a more process-centered theory.8 2 Since then, critics have
attacked on theoretical and practical grounds. On theoretical grounds, social
constructionists claim that the early New Rhetoric mistook the individual
writer for an artist and free agent rather than recognizing her as a culturally
situated and constrained beingss On practical grounds, critics claim that
although cognitive process and social construction started at different points,
they ended up in the same place: current-traditional rhetoric. For the process
approach, the criticism is that it described only a set of tactics rather than
growing out of a fully developed rhetorical theory, and thus itwas simply made
to fit into the current-traditional mode. For the social construction ap-
proach, the criticism is that its emphasis on forms, conventions, and correct-
ness can become indistinguishable from current-traditional rhetoric's focus
on the product rather than any of the processes used to compose it.s
Given a natural time lag, the teaching of legal reading and legal writing
appears to be on the same path.' Almost all legal writing scholarship now

81. Jessie Grearson advocates that legal writing teachers not only introduce students to the
conventions of the legal writing community but also discuss the usefulness of those conven-
tions, encourage students to reflect on and understand the other writing communities to
which they belong, and help students learn "how to manage moves into other, future
discourse communities and writing situations." Grearson, supra note 28, at 74-77.
82. Hairston, supra note 2, at 77.
83. See Lad Tobin, How the Writing Process Was Born-and Other Conversion Narratives, in
Taking Stock: The Writing Process Movement in the '90s, eds. Lad Tobin & Thomas
Newkirk, 7 (Portsmouth, N.H., 1994).
84. See Sharon Crowley, Around 1971: Current-Traditional Rhetoric and Process Models of
Composing, in Composition in 21st Century, supra note 23, at 64. Other criticisms have
focused on the gap between theory and teaching; see, e.g.,Janet Gebhart Auten, A Rhetoric
of Teacher Commentary:. The Complexity of Response to Student Writing, 4 Focuses 3, 3
(1991); Donald C. Stewart, Some History Lessons for Composition Teachers, in The Writing
Teacher's Sourcebook, 2d ed., eds. Gary Tate et al., 16 (NewYork, 1988); Erika Lindemann,
Three Views of English 101, 57 C. Eng. 287,290 (1995). With the writing process movement
now open to criticism, a newgap between theory and practice has emerged. Thus, despite the
recent criticisms, writing process teaching techniques are "embraced by huge numbers of
classroom teachers." Tobin, supra note 83, at 7.
85. Tobin, supra note 83, at 6.
86. For legal writing teachers, New Rhetoric offers an appealing description of what we teach.
See, e.g., Stratman, supra note 79, at 153. New Rhetoric also promises practical benefits: it
implies that other, less time-consuming practices may be more productive than multiple
individual writing conferences and detailed marking of papers. See Hairston, supra note 2, at
79-80;JillJ. Ramsfield, Legal Writing in the Twenty-first Century:. A Sharper Image, 2 Legal
Writing 1, 7-8 & n.64 (1996). Moreover, as an "outsider" theory, New Rhetoric may attract
teachers who are outsiders in a doctrinal world and teachers who are interested in restoring
power and voice to students. See Grearson, supra note 28, at 63. In a different way, the outer-
directed theory of social construction attracts outsiders: it "sounds prestigious and... keeps
the power and influence within the disdpline" rather than sharing it with students. Id. at 73.
 Journalof LegalEducation

focuses on some outgrowth of New Rhetoric, 7 and social construction has

gained much recent support."$ Yet the movement of New Rhetoric into law
school is incomplete and open to criticism. On practical grounds, it is likely
that the product approach still prevails in the places where the papers are
graded, 9 in part because it is the more familiar and straightforward way that
papers have always been graded." On theoretical grounds, as we leaped from
product to process to social construction, it is likely that some of us missed the
best part of New Rhetoric: the theory that reading and writing could be used
to construct meaning and the use of the subsequent research to inform and
enrich our teaching. What follows is an initial attempt to more fully apply
New Rhetoric theory and research to the teaching of legal reading and
legal writing.

II. Generating Thought

By generating an ebb and flow of reader and writer within the student's
head, New Rhetoric offers a way to engage students in "the dialogue that is at
the heart of all composing: a writer is in dialogue with his various selves and
with his audience.""' At times, the "inside reader's eye" predominates as the

87. See, e.g., Kissam, supranote 10, at 151-70; Teresa Godwin Phelps, The New Legal Rhetoric,
40 Sw. L.J. 1089, 1094 (1986); Williams, supra note 77, at 9; Bari R. Burke, Legal Writing
(Groups) at the University of Montana: Professional Voice Lessons in a Communal Context,
52 Mont. L. Rev. 373, 397 (1991); Mary Kate Kearney & Mary Beth Beazley, Teaching
Students How to "Think Like Lawyers": Integrating Socratic Method with the Writing
Process, 64 Temp. L. Rev. 885, 888 (1991); Rideout & Ramsfield, supra note 72, at 51-61;Jo
Anne Durako et al., From Product to Process: Evolution of a Legal Writing Program, 58 U.
Pitt. L Rev. 719 (1997).
88. See Williams, supra note 77, at 23-30; Rideout & Ramsfield, supra note 72, at 56-61. The
logical extension of social construction may be that legal reasoning and writing can best be
learned not in the legal writing classroom but in the law office. See Brook K. Baker, Beyond
MacCrate: The Role of Context, Experience, Theory, and Reflection in Ecological Learning,
36 Ariz. L. Rev. 287 (1994).
89. That the process approach has been widelyadopted is implied by the finding that rewrites are
used to some extent in 79 percent of legal writing courses. See Ramsfield, supranote 86, at 6-
7. But dividing the production of a paper into linear stages and assigning a student to edit
and proofread what both student and teacher treated as a final draft is not the multiple-draft,
meaning-making process suggested by New Rhetoric.
In addition, if the textbooks are accurate indicators of teaching practices, the theory and
practice of teaching legal writing still diverge. See, e.g.,James R. Elkins, What Kind of Story Is
Legal Writing? 20 Legal Stud. F. 95 (1996); Lore Sossin, Discourse Politics: Legal Research
and Writing's Search for a Pedagogy of Its Own, 29 New Eng. L. Rev. 883, 892 (1995);
Stratman, supra note 79, at 198.
90. Some teachers may view their focus on an effective final product as more compatible with
their responsibility to prepare law students for law practice. In law practice, writing will be
valued not for how well it reflects reality or allows personal expression or produces knowl-
edge, but only for how well it achieves its purpose with its intended audience. See, e.g.,James
F. Stratman, Teaching Lawyers to Revise for the Real World: A Role for Reader Protocols, 1
Legal Writing 35 (1991). Finally, "if the rhetoricians often get the best of the abstract
arguments, the traditionalists can still point to savage overwork as an occupational reality for
many writing teachers." In those circumstances, the long New Rhetoric process of reflection
and response may simply be unworkable for the teacher. RobertJ. Connors, The Rhetoric of
Mechanical Correctness, in Only Connect: Uniting Reading and Writing, ed. Thomas Newkirk,
53 (Upper Montclair, 1986) [hereinafter Only Connect]..
91. Berthoff, supra note 1, at 72.
 Applying New Rhetoric to Legal Discourse

student reads texts to interpret the information with which to work.9 2At times,
the "inside writer's eye" predominates as the student explores his readings
and develops thoughts, ideas, plans, and goals as well as when he monitors
his writing to see if it meets his purposes.13 The "outside reader's eye" pre-
dominates when the focus shifts to reviewing the emerging text to see whether
it meets the purposes of an outside reader, and the "outside writer's eye"
is used when the writer concentrates on having an intended effect on an out-
side reader.
The remainder of this article describes selected teaching practices within
this reader-writer loop. Their overall goal is to encourage students to view
their early readings and writings as tentative drafts that are open to change; to
build in pauses when the student-as-reader or the student-as-writer can reflect
on current meaning, goals, and plans; and to give students contextually based
rhetorical choices to move forward.
A. ReadingReflectively: The Expert Process"
In the New Rhetoric view of reading as constructive or transactional, the
reader builds meaning from a text using information provided by the author
and knowledge and experience that the reader already possesses. Under the
New Rhetoric view, what the reader perceives, understands, and remembers
depends not only on the text and its context but also on the reader's prior
knowledge of and experience with similar texts and similar contexts." Be-
cause the beginning legal reader has little prior acquaintance with either the
typical legal text or the legal context," expert-novice theory suggests that law
school teachers should introduce students to both the what and the how
knowledge of expert case reading.

92. Donald M. Murrayuses the term "inner reader" to denote the "other self" who reacts to what
the writer writes and to what the reader reads. Teaching the Other Self: The Writer's First
Reader, 33 C. Comp. & Comm. 140 (1982).
93. Murray also suggests a distinction between "internal revision," what writers do "to discover
and develop what they have to say, beginning with the reading of the completed first draft,"
and "external revision," whatwriters do to communicate what they have to say to an external
audience. Donald M. Murray, Internal Revision: A Process of Discovery, inResearch on
Composing: Points of Departure, eds. Charles R. Cooper & Lee Odell, 86,91 (Urbana, 1978).
This view describes a progression not unlike more traditional models; it also is similar to
Linda Flower's distinction between "writer-based" and "reader-based" prose and to other
researchers' descriptions of different levels of revision or their distinctions between "low-
road" and "high-road" strategies. See Witte, supra note 42, at 257-58 (citing Linda Flower,
Writer-Based Prose: A Cognitive Basis for Problems in Writing, 41 C. Eng. 19 (1979)).
94. By reading and writing reflectively, I mean that students should "reflect" by continuously
monitoring their current understanding of what they are reading, writing, researching, or
thinking. Ann E. Berthoff calls this the "continuing audit of meaning" and credits I. A.
Richards for the concept. Rhetoric as Hermeneutic, 42 C. Comp. & Comm. 279, 281 (1991)
(citing I. A. Richards, How to Read a Page 204, 217 (Boston, 1942)).
95. See, e.g., Emig, supranote 2, at 160; Sam WatsonJr., Polanyi and the Contexts of Composing,
in Reinventing, supra note 35, at 19, 21.
96. The rhetorical context includes a purpose, or the "something waiting to be done" through
- discourse; an audience capable of being influenced by and of interpreting the discourse; and
the constraints on decisions and actions by that audience. See Greenshaw, supra note 10, at
875-77.
 Journalof Legal Education

According to studies of expert and novice legal reading, the differences

between experts and novices fall into three categories. 7 First, experts pay
more attention to context, both the context within which they are reading and
the context within which the case was decided. The contextwithin which they
are reading provides expert readers with a concrete purpose that is reflected
in the way they read. Experienced readers have difficulty reading without a
purpose, and they will construct one if none is provided. In addition to
situating themselves within a context, expert legal readers seek clues to the
context out of which the opinion emerged, first overviewing the case for topic,
decision, and length and checking jurisdiction, level of court, and date. 99
Second, expert legal readers use their superior knowledge of text structure
and conventions to read more flexibly and efficiently, varying both the order
of their reading and the time allotted to different sections. The expert first
seeks background information-what court decided the case (citation); what
the case is about (the summary and headnotes); who won (the decision at the
end). Because the expert knows typical case structures, the expert knows
where to find these things. After an overview for context, the expert reads the
whole case, but the expert spends more time overviewing, reading the first
page and the facts to picture what happened, and rereading the most impor-
tant parts. Without knowledge of case structure and conventions, students
read judicial opinions inflexibly, from beginning to end and at the same rate
of speed and attention.1t °
Third, experts use certain reading strategies more frequently. Reading
strategies can be classified into three general categories: 01 summarizing strat-
egies, in which the reader summarizes, paraphrases, or retells what is being

97. The legal reading studies include Mary A. Lundeberg, Metacognitive Aspects of Reading
Comprehension: Studying Understanding in Legal Case Analysis, 22 Reading Res. Q. 407
(1987); Dorothy H. Deegan, Exploring Individual Differences Among Novices Reading in a
Specific Domain: The Case of Law, 30 Reading Res. Q. 154 (1995); Laurel Currie Oates,
Beating the Odds: Reading Strategies of Law Students Admitted Through Alternative
Admissions Programs, 83 Iowa L Rev. 139 (1997);James F. Stratman, Investigating Persua-
sive Processes in Legal Discourse in Real Time: Cognitive Biases and Rhetorical Strategy in
Appeal Court Briefs, 17 Discourse Processes 1 (1994). Another article describes law school
applications of reading techniques derived from other disciplines. See Elizabeth Fajans &
Mary R. Falk, Against the Tyranny of Paraphrase: Talking Back to Texts, 78 Cornell L Rev.
163 (1993).
98. See, e.g., Oates, supra note 97, at 150-51; Stratman, supra note 79, at 213-15; Explorations
into Law School Literacy, 15 Professions Educ. Researcher Q. 2, 4-6 (1994). For similar
results in more general studies of expert and novice readers, see Haas & Flower, supra note
13, at 178.
99. Lundeberg, supra note 97, at 412-14.
100. Dewitz, supra note 10, at 669-70.
101. Haas and Flower sorted the comments made during their read-aloud protocols into three
categories: content strategies, such as questioning, summarizing, or paraphrasing what the
text "is about"; function/feature strategies, such as identifying conventional functions or
features of texts; and rhetorical reading strategies, such as trying to accountfor the author's
purpose, context, and effect. Haas & Flower, supra note 13, at 174-81. Deegan categorized
the comments made in her think-aloud protocols as problematizing strategies, such as
problem posing and problem solving; default strategies, such as paraphrasing, summariz-
ing, or drawing conclusions; and rhetorical strategies, such as contextualizing or evaluating
the text. Deegan, supra note 97, at 160-61.
 Applying New Rhetoric to LegalDiscourse

read; reflective strategies, 102 in which the reader monitors her understanding
of the text by asking questions, making predictions, and hypothesizing, mov-
ing both forward and backward as she reads; and rhetorical strategies, in
which the reader goes beyond the text and interjects her own comments and
evaluation, imagining a full rhetorical context.'03 Of these strategies, experts
use more "rhetorical" strategies than novices; that is, they place the opinion
into a particular context, they synthesize the parts of the opinion with each
other and the opinion itself with other opinions, and they evaluate the
opinion.'04 Novices are more likely to use "summarizing" strategies, that is,
strategies that try to get at what the text "is about" such as paraphrasing or
keeping track.' Compared with poorer students, stronger student readers
spend more time engaged in "reflective" strategies, monitoring their under-
standing and interpretation of the text as they read."°
Together, studies of expert-novice legal reading suggest that law students
should be introduced to a context-driven reading process as well as encour-
aged to use more reflective and rhetorical reading strategies. 7 Applying these
findings, I begin the first semester of legal writing with an overview of the legal
context and the roles played by the authorities and the authors that the
students will be reading. Then I describe the structure of typical cases and how
experts use that structure to read cases more flexibly. Finally, I describe
reading strategies and explain which strategies are used more often by experts
and by advanced student readers. To show the structure of a typical judicial
opinion, I use a short case, highlight its structure, and read it aloud, describ-
ing my thinking as I go so that the reading serves as one model of expert case
reading108

102. Deegan calls these problematizing strategies, but they appear to measure how aware the
students were of the need to monitor their understanding and how effective they were in
doing so. See Deegan, supra note 97, at 160.
103. See Dewitz, supranote 10, at 659-60; see also Haas & Flower, supra note 13, at 176 for more
description of rhetorical reading strategies.
104. See Lundeberg, supra note 97, at 412; Stratman, supra note 79, at 174.
105. See Lundeberg, supra note 97, at 412-15.
106. See Deegan, supra note 97, at 163. Deegan classified comments that begin with "questions,
hypotheses, or confusions and [are] negotiated to satisfactory or unsatisfactory ends" as
"problematizing" strategies and found that high-performing students spent about 60 per-
cent of their time engaged in such strategies while low-performing students spent about 40
percent of their time using such strategies. Oates classified comments that question or
interpret the text as "connotative" and found that 47 percent of the statements made by the
high-performing students could be classified as connotative. One of the low-performing
students had an even higher percentage (59%) of connotative statements, but Oates noted
that the student lacked basic reading skills and that his use of expert reading strategies was
uneven because they were inconsistent with his goal. See Oates, supra note 97, at 158.
Greater use of both rhetorical and reflective strategies also has been found in studies of
expert or experienced readers in other fields. See Birnbaum, supranote 58, at 30.
107. Students who had been instructed and guided through practice in expert reading processes
and strategies showed gains in separating relevant from irrelevant facts, understanding of
the facts and holding, stating the rule and rationale, and applying the case to a hypothetical
case. Lundeberg, supra note 97, at 417-29. Cf. Haas & Flower, supra note 13, at 182.
108. I literally highlight the structure using an overhead projector. The students have copies of
the case so that they can see the structure and follow the model case reading.
 Journalof Legal Education

After the model, I have students read and brief a case. In addition to
defining key terms and describing underlying legal concepts, the assignment
memo tells them about their client, who has a problem that the case may
address. Reading to solve a client's problem gives students a purpose for their
reading.1" The assignment memo also requires them to write a brief predic-
tion of what is likely to happen to their client before they begin to read.110 As
students read the case, I ask them to answer these questions:"'
* After overviewing the case for context, predict what is going to
happen. What is going to be the issue? How is the court going to
decide? What will be the basis for deciding?
" After reading the opening section describing the proceedings and
the facts, "picture"-write or draw-what happened in the case
and what happened in the trial court.
" As you read, keep track of whether your predictions are correct or
incorrect. When did you know? If incorrect, what is the issue, the
decision, the basis now?
" After reading, do the parts of the case fit together? Does the case fit
into what you already know?
" Did the court do the right thing? Why? How?
" How would it change the meaning if you put the facts, the issue,
112
the basis for the decision another way?
I ask students to write their short, informal, fragmentary answers to these
questions as they read, not after they read. The answers go on one page of a
notebook so that on the facing page the students can write a traditional case
brief, following the structure of a typical court opinion. This system has
immediate benefits: students who follow the questions follow the expert case
reading process, and students who answer the questions practice reflective
and rhetorical reading strategies. As for long-term benefits, by linking their
reading with their writing, students begin to see that their interpretations
emerge from a continuing transaction between reader and writer and text.

B. WritingReflectively: The Reflective Journal

To actively construct meaning from his reading and writing, the student
must start and continue a conversation. As an aid to conversation, I require

109. Stratman suggests that the reason why so few novices in the Lundeberg study engaged in
synthesis and evaluation is that the novices were simply unfamiliar with the purposes for
which cases are read. Stratman, supra note 79, at 215. Other studies have indicated that the
"alignment" or perspective the reader is given will influence what and how much they recall.
See Robert J. Tierney & P. David Pearson, Toward a Composing Model of Reading, 60
Language Arts 568, 572-76 (1983).
110. Writing before reading to improve reading is suggested in Stratman, supra note 79, at 215.
111. These questions are derived from the guidelines that Lundeberg developed and tested in
her study. See Lundeberg, supra note 97, at 430-31, reprinfedinDewitz, supranote 10, at 669-
70. For a textbook example that models the expert case reading process, see Laurel Currie
Oates et al., The Legal Writing Handbook: Analysis, Research, and Writing, 2d ed., 98-100,
188-95 (NewYork, 1998).
112. Asking the question "How does it change the meaning if I put it this way?" is the principal
method of critical inquiry. Berthoff, supra note 1, at 72.
 Applying New Rhetoric to Legal Discourse

students to keep a reflective journal. There the student reader first engages
with what he reads by writing about it and then engages with what he writes
by reading it. The journal forces a physical dialog between its facing pages,
with one page containing first thoughts and the other page requiring
second thoughts."' The physical dialog encourages an actual dialog between
the student-as-reader and the student-as-writer, allowing the student to con-
duct the "continuing audit of meaning" that is necessary for critical reading
and writing.
By encouraging such an audit, the journal helps develop the habits of
mature readers and writers.Journal assignments underscore the tentativeness
of first readings and first writings because they are necessarily subject to
second thoughts on every facing page. Journal assignments build in pauses,
during which the student can check her current understanding, monitor her
progress, and decide what to do next. Journal assignments explicitly link
reading and writing, thus offering students "the chance to practice interpret-
ing in such a way that whatever is learned about reading is something learned
about writing." 4
The journal begins with the case reading and briefing sequence already
described. For each subsequent assignment, the student receives information
about a client with a legal problem and is assigned to research and write about
the probable outcome. Each assignment begins with an entry in which the
students respond first to the task itself. Their response follows a grid similar to
5
that used for case reading.
* After overviewing the client's problem, predict what is going to
happen. What is going to be the issue? How will it be decided?
What will be the basis for deciding?
" After reading the file closely, write or draw a "picture" of what
happened to your client.
" As you read (or research or write), keep track of whether your
initial predictions are correct or incorrect. When did you know?
How did you know? If incorrect, what is the issue, your prediction,
the basis for your prediction now?
" Do the pieces of your client's problem fit together? Does your
predicted outcome fit into what you already know?
* Is your predicted outcome the right one? Why? How? For whom?
* How could you change the outcome by putting the facts, the issue,
the rules another way?

113. Ann Berthoff is the designer of the dialectical or double-entry notebook. See id. at 45. An
explanation of the dialectical notebook process, written for student use, can be found in
Peter Elbow & Pat Belanoff, A Community of Writers: A Workshop Course in Writing 425-
29 (NewYork, 1989).
114. Berthoff, supra note 1, at 45.
115. Because the students continue to respond to their reading of another author's writing or
their own, the reflective-reader questions make sense throughout the journal assignments.
This set of questions thus is designed to correspond with the kinds of reading strategies used
most by experts and better students: that is, they are primarily reflective and rhetorical
questions.
 Journalof Legal Education

For mostjournal assignments, I ask the student to first read and respond to
the previous assignment before moving on. At work in the journal assign-
ments is a spiraling conversation among the readings, the student reader, the
journal writings, the student writer.' Unlike the usual reading or writing
assignment, the reflectivejournal forces students to engage more deeply with
the writing of other authors and then with their own writing. When it works,
the reflective journal builds in the habit of pausing to monitor current
understanding and to plan for the future. When it works, the reflectivejournal
helps students "read like a writer" so that, over time, they will know better how
to "write for a reader."

C. Planningin Writing: The Zero Draft

Traditional methods of teaching students to plan their writing changed
under New Rhetoric.'1 7 In current-traditional rhetoric, invention received
little attention: the writing process began with an outline of thoughts that bad
already been generated. A richer conception of planning as a way to generate
thought emerged from New Rhetoric.
Expressivist teachers popularized brainstorming and gave a name to
freewriting-"private, nonstop writing where you write about whatever you
want to write about or put down whatever comes to mind" as a way of getting
the "chaos in your head" onto a piece of paper."" Freewriting was a "means of
making way for some process or capacity" that already existed within the
writer. Like browsing through a used bookstore, freewriting allowed you to
find valuable volumes that you did not even know existed.
Cognitive process researchers also opened up planning. They determined
that planning did not begin and end with an outline, but instead that it
included both goals and content, that it required monitoring and deciding
throughout the work, and that it allowed writers to switch back and forth
between strategies as things changed." 9 The research identified basic plan-
ning strategies that experts used opportunistically: expert writers sometimes
used freewriting as a discovery tool or as a short-term planning mechanism;
sometimes they used script- or schema-driven planning, following an already
developed organizational format suitable for the subject; sometimes they used
knowledge-driven planning, following the structure of their research or the
authorities they had read; and when the other strategies were not sufficient,
they used constructive planning, a more complex, reflective, recursive, and
strategic process." 0

116. Although I use thejournal primarily to connect students' reading and writing, introspective
journal writing can give law students a way to connect their learning to themselves. See
James R. Elkins, Writing Our Lives: Making Introspective Writing a Part of Legal Education,
29 Willamette L. Rev. 45 (1993).
117. Even critics who say that the process approach was not a paradigm shift acknowledge that it
changed the way composition teachers teach planning. See Crowley, supranote 84, at 70-72.
118. Elbow & Belanoff, supra note 113, at 9, 17.
119. Flower et al., supranote 46, at 47-48.
120. I&at 4-5.
 Applying New Rhetoric to LegalDiscourse

Drawing on these strands from New Rhetoric, I encourage students to use

one or more of these strategies as initial steps. The first option, a zero draft,
falls somewhere between freewriting and a knowledge-driven or narrative
draft.1 2 1 By getting "something down on paper" in a zero draft, the writer has
produced something that she can revise. A zero draft helps the writer begin
writing at a time when she is unlikely to be able to form the complex concepts
required to create an integrated network of large and small ideas.lss At that
point, "if no one minds, it is a lot easier to just list the parts," either as a
narrative of the writer's own discovery process or as a survey of the data in
front of the writer using the internal structure of an already existing text.L
After they have completed some reading and research, all of which they
have written about in their reflectivejournals, I ask students to start with a list.
For five or ten minutes, they list everything they can think of that pertains to
their writing assignment: facts, rules, ideas from cases, thoughts about issues,
arguments, and ways to approach the assignment. Then I draw a line down the
center of the board and tell them to assume that they will need at least two big
blocks of material. What could those blocks be called? Do they need more
than two big blocks? If so, I add them. Then I ask for items from their lists, and
we tentatively assign them to blocks. This process leads to more blocks and to
outside-the-block lists of questions, goals, and plans. Once we have finished
placing most items into blocks, we decide, tentatively, how many chunks each
block could contain and what those chunks could be called. 24 Our "block"
and "chunk" outline is concretely tentative; its physical appearance is so
sketchy and messy that students rarely treat it as anything but a place to start.
As this tentative blocking indicates, the zero draft is not formless; its form is
merely simple and familiar.lss Even in zero drafting, some thought of purpose
and audience and format will intrude. But the real audience for a zero draft is
the writer herself; the writing is used to discover what the writer may have to
say rather than to conform to what the reader wants. 12 Only after the student

121. The term "zero draft" seems to encourage students to explore because it conveys the
message that the draft is not graded and that it is not even a first draft. I first saw the term in
Fajans & Falk, supra note 97, at 183, 203 (citingJill N. Burkland & Bruce T. Petersen, An
Integrative Approach to Research: Theory and Practice, in Convergences, supranote 17, at
189, 199).
122. Flower, supra note 93, at 27.
123. Id.at 27-28. Even if a narrative listing does not meet the needs of the eventual reader, it
apparently helps the writer recall, recount, and reflect. The author cites an experiment in
which 100 New Yorkers were asked to tell researchers the layout of their apartments; 97
percent responded with a tour instead of a map, indicating that listing is an effective strategy
for recalling information without repeating it. Id. at 28-29 (citing Charlotte Linde &
William Labov, Spatial Networks as a Site for the Study of Language and Thought, 51
Language 924 (1975)).
124. The terms and the process are suggested in Erika Lindemann, A Rhetoric for Writing
Teachers, 3d ed., 132-35 (NewYork, 1995).
125. I ask students to try to keep related ideas together and to try to use paragraph structure to
show separation between ideas, but Iassure them that these tasks can be the next step rather
than the first step.
126. Merron Chorny, A Context for Writing, in Reinventing, supranote 35, at 1, 5. Flower calls
this record of the weaving of thought written by a writer to himself and for himself "writer-
based prose." Flower, supra note 93, at 19.
 Journalof Legal Education

has worked out an initial understanding of what she thinks can she begin to
worry about reaching a particular audience for a particular reason using a
particular format.
In other words, although the zero draft is not free, it should not cost the
writer very much. Because he is in the midst of an initial experiment, the
writer should be allowed to test his interpretation, organization, argument,
evaluation; the student should feel free to take chances and to make mistakes.
The teacher can guide the experiment, but should not take over. Reading a
zero draft and expecting to find a finished product will be disheartening, but
reading a zero draft as a vessel for discovery allows the teacher to be hopeful
and helpful. When zero drafts are narrative summaries of the facts, the
student's research, or the history of a case, they serve useful purposes. Sum-
mary or history drafts get the need to summarize out of the way, help students
reflect on what they have read by seeing it in their own words, and give
teachers a basis for suggesting next steps. By the end of a zero draft, the
student often reaches the start of the next draft."z
An alternative to the zero draft is a working draft based on a preexisting
heuristic, script; or schema."s Although these structures organize the draft,
their more important role is to help the writer generate thought. Heuristics,
for example, are techniques for educated guessing that "were originally con-
ceived of as generative techniques, useful.. . for exploring a subject." Such
structures are dangerous: teachers must present them as ways to work through
and understand a problem rather than "as formats for presenting information
that the writer is assumed to already understand." 12 Nonetheless, because
they do represent common thought processes, a schema or a script can help a
writer work her way through such a process and see the relationships between
its parts."s For example, I show students a working draft framework that is
based on a common schema, an IRAC divided into mini-iracs for each ele-
ment of a major rule, and a common script, the standard types of arguments
that lawyers make; the script is embedded within each mini-irac. If used
correctly, the framework can be a heuristic that generates thought rather than
a paradigm that presents thought because it asks questions at each step. Can
the plaintiff show a duty? What is the definition of a duty? Where does the
definition come from? How has the definition been supported and applied?

127. See Flower, supra note 93, at 34-37.

128. This planning strategy can succeed when the writer knows a script or schema that is
appropriate to the task and when the schema is specified in adequate detail to guide the
drafting of the text. Flower et al., supra note 46, at 6.
129. Applebee, supranote 44, at582.A collection of heuristics is found in Lindemann, supra note
124, at 114-21.
130. A schema is a structure that organizes information hierarchically, but the information is not
necessarily in order. In contrast, a script organizes information in order, by time or move or
category, but it is not necessarily hierarchical. See e.g., Oates et al., supra note 111, at 132-
50. Later, after thought has been generated and rethought, such structures can be used for
avery different purpose, providing a map of a conventional structure that an outside reader
may expect. See, e.g., Richard K. Neumann Jr., Legal Reasoning and Legal Writing:
Structure, Strategy, and Style, 3d ed., 89-91 (New York, 1998) (paradigm for structuring
proof); Linda Holdeman Edwards, Legal Writing: Process, Analysis, and Organization 85-
88 (Boston, 1996) (paradigm for legal analysis).
 Applying New Rhetoric to Legal Discourse

What factual arguments can you make? What analogous case arguments can
you make? What policy arguments can you make?
Teacher comments on zero drafts and working drafts should be fellow-
writer comments, similar to those a lawyer might make on a colleague's early
draft. On such a draft, the reading lawyer would make comments and pose
questions in the margins, mark sections that seemed poorly thought out or
unnecessary, respond positively or negatively to particular statements, suggest
a different organization or a shift in perspective. Comments on zero and
working drafts should be the same. They are best made in the margins, next to
and in response to particular sections of text. Rather than providing an overall
evaluation of an early pause in a work-in-progress, the teacher should help the
student monitor her current understanding and decide what to do next. The
teacher should read the draft for what it is, a tentative first thought, and as who
she is, a helpful fellow writer who can suggest ways to geneiate second
thoughts.

m. Having Second Thoughts

Because revision was the end of the line in the linear model, it was treated
as "no more than an afterthought.""3 ' New Rhetoric suggested that revision
could be used instead to generate second thoughts.' The New Rhetoric view
of revision is sophisticated and complicated; it recognizes that more revision is
not necessarily better revision'"3 and that revision sometimes makes writing
worse." Because revision is therefore risky, pauses and other readers should
be built into the writing schedule to give students "[tlhe most powerful
resources for good revision... [,] time and new eyes.""'
A. ReadingReflectively: The First Readers
To revise, the writer must read her own text. Such reading is difficult and
painful: the writer must be able to read at different distances and for different
audiences." In addition, every writer is reading "the text I intended to write,
the text I am writing, and the text I hope yet to write." 37
Assigning a progression of drafts means that students will do some reading
and responding to their previous drafts, but the review may be minimal.

131. Sommers, supra note 49, at 379.

132. See Maimon et al., supra note 36, at 3.
133. See Faigley & Witte, supra note 49, at 410-11.
134. See Nancy Sommers, Between the Drafts, 43 C. Comp. & Comm. 23, 26 (1992); Faigley &
Witte, supra note 49, at 411 (citing Sondra Perl, Understanding Composing, 31 C. Comp. &
Comm. 363 (1980)).
135. Elbow & Belanoff, supra note 113, at 175.
136. See Lynn Quitman Troyka, Closeness to Text: A Delineation of Reading Processes as They
Affect Composing, in Only Connect, supra note 90, at 187, 194-95. The writer must be able
to read from a great distance to determine her "meaning"; at a middle range for form,
organization, and style; and at a close range for words and letters. Troyka writes that
operating simultaneously at different ranges is not the same as doing first one thing and
then another. Id.
137. Donald M. Murray, Reading While Writing, inOnly Connect, supra note 90, at 251.
 Journalof Legal Education

Asking students to respond in writing to their previous drafts can prompt a

more active conversation with the writer's previous thoughts."s With that goal,
I ask students to read and respond to their drafts on their drafts, by writing
questions, comments, and suggestions in the margins. Similar to the facing
pages of the reflective journal, writing in the margins requires the student to
monitor her writing, creates a physical dialog between text and margin that
underscores the tentativeness of the text, and records a transaction between
the student's writing and reading.
In addition to the margin responses, I ask students to use theirjournals to
keep a reflective log of their developing thought-in-writing. As drafts are
written and shared or written and turned in, I require students to pause and
respond to a new set of summarizing, reflective, and rhetorical questions:
" Write a quick "picture" of what happened as you drafted or re-
drafted this piece.
* Have your predictions changed? Why? When? How?
* Which of your writing plans have been working well?
* Which of your writing plans have been working poorly?
* What are your goals for the next draft?
* How can you change the outcome by doing something another
139
way?
The margin and reflective journal responses help students monitor and
reflect on their developing thoughts. To help students find form for those
thoughts, I reintroduce blocking. Unlike outlining, which starts with form,
"blocking" starts with writing; while a formal outline may meet readerly
demands, blocking may be more compatible with writerly needs. The process
starts with the writer's thought-in-writing and imposes order because catego-
ries and classifications can be seen when the writing is read. For blocking, I ask
students to save the full text of their draft, make a copy, and then, on the copy,
eliminate everything but the one sentence of each paragraph that could
become a topic or thesis sentence. 14° Using the resulting sentence summary,
students decide for their own papers: How many blocks of material do I need?
What should those blocks be called? What is the purpose of each block? What
paragraphs go into which block? What blocks should be broken into smaller
chunks? How big should each chunk be? How can I develop each chunk?
What order of blocks and chunks makes sense?
To provide another "first reader" for zero or working drafts, I schedule
writing conferences to talk about both the students' first reading of their
drafts and my own. Instead of a postmortem writing conference after a paper

138. Elbow & Belanoff, supra note 113, at 166.

139. Other writing teachers have suggested that students should describe the process of their
writing, their problems, and their tentative solutions in a "writer's memo" or a "private
memo" that is handed in with a draft. Seejeffrey Sommers, The Writer's Memo: Collabora-
tion, Response, and Development, in Writing and Response, supranote 8, at 174; Kearney &
Beazley, supra note 87, at 894-95.
140. Word-processing programs may aid revision by diminishing some risks, such as the risk of
forever losing only the good parts of a draft. Elbow & Belanoff, supra note 113, at 438.
 Applying New Rhetoric to Legal Discourse

has been graded, a between-the-drafts writing conference on a living work-in-

progress can be immediately and concretely useful. 4 I listen to the writer's
summary of where he has been and his plans for where he is going, and then I
suggest, question, prod, push, and provide alternatives. In between-the-drafts
conference, I try to act as a supportive fellow writer who can offer strategies,
techniques, and explanations that grow out of my experience writing in the
same field.'4

B. Reading and Writing Together: The Peer Writing Group

Other readers for the students' early drafts are found among their peers.
Before reading and responding to each other's current work, they read and
respond to good and bad samples of prior students' earlier work. In these
situations, they are involved in reconstructing or shaping the writing decisions
made by other student writers and they are "participants, as both readers and 4
writers, in a discussion which has as its focus reading-and-writing-in-progress." 3
After students have done some drafting themselves, they can gain insights
and options for the next draft by reconstructing the process through which
another student writer created a similar final product. At that point, a student
sample provides examples of the rhetorical problems faced by similar writers
of similar papers and of the decision-making processes and choices made by
the writers.'" This use of samples does not give students a model to mimic;
instead, students come away with a parallel experience, the decision-making
process that another student writer went through to produce a similar text.
After students have reviewed similar finished writings, I form peer writing
groups so they can review each other's current work in progress. Between-the-
drafts peer writing groups work because they provide "new eyes": it is easier to

141. For the autopsy analogy, see Thomas A. Carnicelli, The Writing Conference: A One-to-One
Conversation, in Eight Approaches, supra note 30, at 101, 102-03.
142. Donald M. Murray describes a progression in his writing conference roles as his students
move through a project. In prewriting conferences, he helps students generate thoughts. As
their drafts develop, he becomes "a bit removed, a fellow writer who shares his own writing
problems, his own search for meaning and form." Finally, he becomes "more the reader,
more interested in the language, in clarity. I have begun to detach myself from the writer
and from the piece of writing . .. ." The Listening Eye: Reflections on the Writing
Conference, 41 C. Eng. 13, 17 (1979).
Brooke K. Horvath suggests that in the role of "more experienced writer, the instructor
[can offer] techniques, tricks of the trade, that the student can add to her repertoire." The
Components of Written Response: A Practical Syntheis of Current Views, 2 Rhetoric Rev.
1386 (1984), reprinted in Sourcebook, supra note 11, at 207, 212-13. See also Terri LeClercq,
The Premature Deaths of Writing Instructors, 3 Integrated Legal Res. 4,14 (1991); Kearney
& Beazley, supra note 87, at 898-99.
143. Bartholomae & Petrosky, supra note 16, at 93.
144. In a persuasive brief-writing course, for example, we use two student-written briefs, one
from each party to the dispute. The students work in groups to discuss the decisions made
by the brief writers. The questions focus first on how and why the writers chose one of
several possible organizational structures; then on how and why the writers chose to use
particular authorities, to present the authority in particular ways, to make particular kinds
of arguments, and to provide differing levels of support for those arguments; then on why
and how the writers chose particular kinds of emphasis and phrasing; and finally on why and
how the writers chose particular ways of describing the facts.
 JournalofLegalEducation

find form and to discover good and bad writing decisions in the work of
others." In addition, these groups help students develop as readers and
writers by letting them experience the collaboration of reader and writer to
monitor, diagnose, and fix problems at a time when collaboration can still
help."* In the groups, the students are asked to act as fellow writers and to
focus on "reseeing, rethinking, or changing
47
the bones," helping their peer
writers find form and develop content.
48
Students bring their current early draft to the peer writing workshop.
Before they exchange papers with their assigned peers, I ask each author to
reread his own draft quickly and to write his most pressing questions or doubts
or problems on the back of one page. After the exchange, the peer writer is
asked to focus first on the author's concerns and then to read the draft. As she
reads, the peer writer jots down questions or problems or comments in the
margins as they occur to her. The peer writer does a thumbnail after-the-fact
outline, or if the draft is too early for that, the peer writer is asked to try to
"block" and "chunk" the draft. Then the peer writer responds to written
questions about organization and content. 4 Finally, the peer writers meet to
discuss specific suggestions for improvement: What other organizational struc-
ture might be used? What would help to fully develop this point. How can this
argument be supported? What relationship or link might be added here?
Peer writer responses are different from teacher responses to a work in
progress. In contrast to teacher responses, peer responses are more focused,
more specific, and more directive." s Peer reader-writers have "the advantage
of immediacy in time and space"; they can explain face to face and immedi-
ately; they can explain faster and more completely by speaking than they can
in writing. Moreover, students appear to respond to a draft in process by trying

145. More generally, writing groups may help prepare law students for the often collaborative
nature of writing in the legal profession. See Burke, supra note 87, at 404-06.
146. There is some evidence that peer response works better between the drafts than after a
finished product has been turned in and graded. In a study of peer response, one group was
markedly uncooperative and found the peer meetings to be unhelpful, Anne Ruggles Gere
& Ralph S. Stevens, The Language of Writing Groups: How Oral Response Shapes Revision,
in Acquisition, supra note 42, at 85, 98-99. The authors speculated that "any further
treatment [by the peers] was bound to seem anticlimactic" because the students in that
group had done all theirwriting in one draft, which had already been graded by the teacher
by the time the groups met. Id.
147. Elbow & Belanoff, supra note 113, at 167.
148. Because these drafts are ungraded, some students will bring in "better" drafts than others. If
a student brings in a draft that shows some level of effort, he is allowed to participate. One
characteristic of an early draft is that it is difficult to evaluate; something that looks awful
may be a wonderful start for a particular student. So I cannot form groups with students of
the same or different "achievement" levels; instead I match them by their apparent level of
effort and by their apparent level of interest in working with their peers. If students work
well together, I often keep them together for the rest of the semester. Although I call them
peer writing and peer reading "groups," they are usually pairs for logistical convenience.
149. I give students a written guide with specific questions to answer and room for the written
answers. Although the peer reader gives the peer writer both oral and written feedback, I
keep a copy of the written answers, mostly to assure that students remain thoughtful and
tactful in their comments.
150. Gere & Stevens, supra note 146, at 85.
 Applying New Rhetoric to Legal Discourse

to help the writer form "an actual text" while teachers appear to respond by
trying to help the writer form "an ideal text."'5'
Through reading and response, the student has paused between the drafts
to tap into the ebb and flow of being both a reader and a writer and of
reflecting on emerging texts within a context of fellow writers. The student-as-
writer has stopped to read and monitor his current meaning, heard fellow-
writer responses from his teacher and his peers, and charted his next thoughts.
The student-as-reader has read and monitored the texts of other students and
responded to them as a writer. In the process, students may read and write
their way to second thoughts.

IV. Before the Last Draft

First thoughts and second thoughts are for the writer. But the last draft is
for the reader, and in legal writing the purpose of the last draft is to persuade
that reader to believe something or to do something. To be able to have such
an effect on an audience, a student writer must work through not only what
she has to say but also how it can best be heard by those she wants to affect.
That is, she must be able to imagine, and to cultivate within herself, the kind of
reader her writing will encounter. 5 Earlier in the reader-writer loop, both
student and teacher were readers in good faith who read to understand; they
tried to help the writer find meaning and form; they suggested, questioned,
encouraged; and they offered the benefit of the doubt. Now, as outside
readers, both student and teacher must act more like the "stranger who reads
... with a lawyer's eyes, searching for flaws." Earlier the reader and the writer
within the student's head were equal negotiators; now the reader is "a buyer in
a buyer's market."5

A. Reading Critically:The PeerReading Group

Without some basis for imagining and some practice imagining that they
are reading and writing within the law, students cannot make appropriate
rhetorical choices.'I Before becoming an outside reader, the student must
first be able to imagine such a reader. To imagine a legal audience, law
students should figuratively walk around within such an audience: watch as
lawyers, judges, legislators work; listen to clients' problems; read the stories
told by those who work in, or who are caught within, the law. A basis for
imagining can be provided in various ways. Practitioner journals and bar

151. I&at 102-03. Students unconsciously assume a rhetorical purpose, that is, that the writing
was designed to have an influence or an effect on an audience. Teachers tend to assume a
more pedagogical purpose, that the writing is an exercise meant to train students in the use
of certain rhetorical forms. Id.
152. One goal of college writing courses has been to teach students to read their own work
objectively, to "decenter" from their own thoughts on paper, so that they can change it from
writer-based to reader-based prose. See Ronald, supra note 17, at 231, 234.
153. Mina P.Shaughnessy, Errors &Expectations: A Guide for the Teacher of Basic Writing 7,12
(New York, 1977).
154. See Irvin C.Rutter, Law, Language, and Thinking Like a Lawyer, 61 U. in. L. Rev. 1303,
1307-10 (1993) for concrete examples of how visualization can help students see gaps in
what they have written.
 Journalof Legal Education

association newsletters and magazines carry stories about legal practice; fic-
tion and nonfiction trace the process of lawsuits and are filled with narratives
of clients, defendants, victims, lawyers, and judges. Students can collect and
use "reader protocols" from lawyers, law clerks, and judges to better under-
stand how these real-world audiences read legal memos and briefs."-' Students
can conduct sophisticated analyses of their potential legal audiences."
Equipped with a basis for imagining a legal audience, students should
practice reading as such an audience. Throughout the semester, my students
and I look at whatever we are then reading and talk about its effect on us as
novice and expert legal readers. In addition to interpreting what the writing
"means," we look at how its structure, tone, style, and word choices affect our
interpretations. In particular, we identify organizational cues, discuss why they
are helpful to us as readers, and in what situations they might be more or less
necessary. We decide whether particular words and phrases in particular
documents are more or less helpful in achieving the writer's purpose. These
brief experiences as outside legal readers help students see that writing
choices make a difference to outside readers.
Later, in peer reading groups, my students take on the outside-reader role
for each other's work. They are asked, for example, to read another student's
memo as a supervisor, another student's brief as a judge or a responding
attorney, another student's client letter as a client." Their instructions ask
them to respond to the work as a particular kind of outside reader rather than
to evaluate how good the paper might be.ss After responding in writing, the
students talk with each other about their responses." 9 Through the peer

155. See Stratman, supra note 90, at 47.

156. Such analyses would determine (1) audience attributes, that is, what the audience knows
about the subject, what the audience needs from the writing, what the audience believes
about the topic or the writer, and what power or status the audience has; (2) assessment
criteria, that is, what criteria an audience like the one imagined would use to judge the
writing; and (3) rhetorical strategies, that is,what ways of presenting the topic would meet
the imagined criteria and allow the writer to achieve her intended effect. See Richard Beach
&JoAnne Liebman-Kleine, The Writing/Reading Relationship: Becoming One's Own Best
Reader, in Convergences, supra note 17, at 64, 65-70. The authors outline a series of specific
activities for teaching audience analysis. Id. at 74-81.
157. I separate peer writingfrom peer reading from peer editing to emphasize to students that
each activity isa different way to read and respond.
158. See Carol Batker & Charles Moran, The Reader in the Writing Class, in Only Connect, supra
note 90, at 198,205. Batker and Moran suggest that reader-response questions help students
see how readers' experiences can produce different interpretations and thus can improve
writers' abilities to analyze their audiences. Id. After experience with legal writing groups,
Bari Burke concluded that "reader-based feedback" works better than feedback based on
abstract criteria, especially when the reader-based feedback focuses on the relationship
between the writer's intentions and the effect of the text on the reader. See Burke, supra
note 87, at 407-09.
159. Some composition teachers advocate peer read-aloud sessions where the readers read other
students' papers aloud, talking about their comprehension and other problems as theyread
See Beach & Liebman-Kleine, supra note 156, at 80. Others advocate writer read-aloud
sessions where the writers read their papers aloud and the peers respond with written and
oral comments. See Birnbaum, supranote 58, at 43-44. Having to ask questions helps the
student-as-reader form better questions when she reads her own work; having to answer
questions helps the student-as-writer learn how to make and to justify her choices.
 Applying New Rhetoric to Legal Discourse

reading groups, the peer reader gains experience "objectifying" a written

document, an experience that can help the student view her own paper as not
her own. The peer writer receives response from an actual reader and can
even ask questions of that reader. 160 In before-the-last-draft writing confer-
6
ences, I provide another outside reader's response to the student's work.' 1

B. Writing Critically:Response to OtherReadings

After practice reading as an outside reader, the students practice writing
for such a reader. Thus, after reader response and discussion, the peers work
together to revise one or two sections of their papers in response to the
reader's suggestions. In this way, the writer practices how to respond to a
writing suggestion and learns immediately whether his response is effective.
During the before-the-last-draft writing conference, I also help the student
writer revise in response to a few of my outside-reader suggestions.
In addition to specific suggestions from outside readers who have actually
read their individual papers, the students also practice writing in response to
more general outside-reader suggestions. Because outside legal readers ex-
pect logical relationships to be explicitly marked and expect conventional
rule and argument patterns to be observed, I ask students to determine
whether their not-yet-final drafts meet these general expectations. That is, I
ask the students to find or to write thesis sentences for every paragraph, to
string the sentences together, and then to write "through" them with transi-
tions and connectors. I ask students to use the now-connected sentences to
write a new thesis paragraph. They can then evaluate the thesis's relationship
to the rest of the paper as well as the logical links between the parts of the
paper. This exercise helps students develop the convention of "explicitly
marking the logical and rhetorical relationships between sentences, para-
graphs, and larger units of composition." 62 I also ask students to compare the
structure of the paragraphs in their not-yet-final draft to suggested paradigms
for establishing legal rules and supporting legal proofs. This exercise helps
students observe the conventional patterns "between concrete and abstract
statements" and "between cases and generalizations" or at least to determine
that they are not doing so.'6 As for sentence structures and word choices, we
read, discuss, and revise good and bad examples taken from professional and
student samples. Such hands-on review and revision is the only way students
can acquire the judgment about sentence structure and word choices that
comes "not from the study of vocabulary lists but from having been a steady
reader of the kind of writing people do [in law school]."'I

160. See Burke, supra note 87, at 404-05.

161. In these conferences I try to read and respond as an "average legal reader." Some reader-
response theorists suggest that the writing conference should be used to "read[] through a
student's writing and, as we read, describ[e] as best we can what is happening to us-
becoming, in short, a real-life, talking and responding reader." Batker & Moran, supra note
158, at 205.
162. Shaughnessy, supra note 153, at 240.
163. Id.
164. Id at 188.
 Journalof LegalEducation

Finally, I ask students to pause before the last draft and to use theirjournals
to summarize, reflect, and respond. Through reading and response, the
student-as-writer has stopped to read and monitor his efforts to reach an
audience, heard outside-reader responses from his teacher and his peers, and
charted his next draft for the reader he expects to encounter. The student-as-
reader has read and monitored the texts of other students and responded to
them as a reader. In the process, students may read and write their way to
rhetorical effectiveness.

This article suggests an ebb and flow of reader and writer, text and context
drawn from New Rhetoric theory, research, and teaching practices. Looking
back, my conclusion seems self-evident: students will become better legal
readers and writers if they are encouraged to construct second thoughts out of
first thoughts, over time, through reflection, and in context. But if I had
known that it would be my conclusion when I started, I wouldn't have had to
write this.'6

165. See Donald M. Murray, The Feel of Writing-and Teaching Writing, in Reinventing, supra
note 35, at 67, 68.