Navigating the Frustrations of Constant Revisions in the Legal World
In the legal profession, the dynamic of reviewing and revising written work can vary greatly depending on the environment. Having previously clerked for a federal judge, I experienced a work culture focused on substantive legal insights rather than unnecessary stylistic changes. My judge would provide specific comments such as, “we need more on how burden shifting applies,” or suggest the addition of relevant facts. This approach centered around meaningful improvements, fostering my professional growth.
However, my current experience at a law firm is quite different. Here, the practice of rewriting seems endemic and often feels redundant. It’s as though, even if iconic figures like Scalia and Ginsburg were to draft a brief, it would still undergo drastic revisions purely for the sake of change. Partners frequently circulate drafts that lead to unnecessarily complicated revisions, which can detract from the clarity and effectiveness of the final work. The focus often shifts to irrelevant details, such as obscure dicta from cases that hold little significance.
This leaves me pondering the reasons behind this pervasive rewriting culture. Is it a reflection of insecurity, a need for partners to assert their authority, or simply a lack of trust in junior staff’s capabilities?
I’ve noticed that responses to this concern often appeal to authority: “He is a partner and you are not,” they say. Yet, this perspective ignores the potential inefficiency and needless complexity that can arise from endless revisions. Perhaps a bit of philosophical insight from thinkers like Wittgenstein could encourage a more balanced approach to legal writing—one that values clarity and precision over perpetual edits.
For legal professionals navigating similar frustrations, it’s vital to maintain a focus on producing clear and substantive work, advocating for a culture of improvement that prioritizes necessary changes over mere stylistic preferences.
No Responses