Negotiating Personal and Professional Voice

In Clinical and Legal Writing Courses

Of all the wide-ranging discourse communities that we find in various disciplines, it
would seem that those in the medical and legal fields might be among those taught to be the
most precise and non-reflective of the personality of the writer. Since we tend to think of
medicine and law in rather exacting terms, it might follow that the writing of clinical and legal
practitioners could be as dry and precise as the sciences and laws themselves. Dr. Andrea
McArdle, Associate Professor and Director of Legal Writing at City University of New York
(CUNY) stresses, however, that it is possible to teach students to write with precision while
developing and maintaining their own unique voices. In Teaching Writing in Clinical,
Lawyering and Legal Writing Courses: Negotiating Personal and Professional Voice, McArdle's
aim is to draw attention to the issue of voice and the means with which teachers of writing
employ pedagogical approaches in training law students to find a balance a
between professional and personal one. Voice which includes word choice, tone,
structure, and syntax is that vital, individual element of uniqueness and individuality that must
be present in order to a lawyer to develop his or her own personal identity within a new
discourse community. Dr. McArdle presented sections of this article at different legal writing
conferences in 2004 and 2005, with the article being published in its entirety in the Clinical Law
Review in Spring 2006.
In addressing her comments to fellow law school professors and medical school writing
teachers, McArdle is as well qualified as any on this point. With degrees in law, literature, and
American studies, her writing style is appropriate for this particular audience, although any

teacher of writing and/or student with a love of the law would find this article most informative.
Since the article is somewhat lengthy, she breaks it into five sections: Reading Judicial
Writing; Reading Lawyers' Words; Writing Outside of Professional Forums: Imaginative
and Reflective Writing; Writers and Mentors: Keeping Up a Dialog; and Reading Outside of
Professional Forms: Problematizing Professional Voice. These divisions aide the reader in
gaining a clearer understanding of the thesis as she illustrates each from her experience as both
an attorney and a professor of writing. With elegant examples, McArdle illustrates the
pedagogical ideal for future attorneys: an expert legal voice balanced with a personal voice.
Upon entering law school, students are rigorously trained in the letter of the law and in
writing professionally. Clinical teachers need to ensure that student achieves the standard of
competence and assists them in developing confidence as a writer. While there is little question
that their legal education, along with the flurry of pleadings, briefs, memoranda and other filings
these emergent lawyers will face as they enter a new discourse community, there is still the cry
for the individual voice of the person behind the lawyer. McArdle recalls Professor Julius
Getman's call for greater valuing of 'human voice' in legal education. (503) She repeats the
call for pedagogical change in legal education to include that human voice in legal writing.
Professor McArdle includes judicial writing as part of her pedagogy to encourage
individual voice in future lawyers, with Supreme Court opinions as examples. In Chicago v.
Morales, Justice Breyer stated: The ordinance is unconstitutional, not because a policeman
applied this discretion wisely or poorly in a particular case, but rather because the policeman
enjoys too much discretion in every case. (511) In Bush v. Gore, Justice Breyer, in his opening
statement makes the straightforward declarative statement that the Court was wrong to take this
case. He goes on to repeat the word wrong several times. (511) And in a decision by Justice

Scalia in Troxel v. Granville, we see formal phrases from the Declaration of Independence
(endowed by their Creator) along with informal phrases such as in a flash. (513) The
individual voices of these justices underscore McArdle's call for the encouragement of
individuality in legal writing. Such statements illustrate the human behind the black robe the
person behind the power.
In asking students to analyze Arguments in child advocacy cases for grammar,
organization, sentence structure, word choice, and thesis statement, legal writing teachers may
help students become more aware of not only the facts of the case but also key words conveying
tone. (517) Additionally, the study of legal briefs written by students in similar cases, along
with notes written in peer review, would be an additional tool in order to instruct law students in
improving writing skills and voice. McArdle stresses that lawyers must persuade, and by
critiquing the writing of others in their own discourse community they may become more
effective at persuasion as well. All these methods, including that of using lawyer mentors to
work with students on their writing in order to build competence and confidence, are sound ideas
that McArdle suggest and which appeal to the reader.
An unfortunate consequence of working within the legal profession is the widespread
belief that lawyers are heartless. Members of the profession often carry the stigma of callous
disregard for humanity. One of McArdle's appeals involves writing about law in a variety of
forms narratively, introspectively, reflectively. Aside from the strictly technical details in a
legal case, a writer can reflect on a client's circumstances, or requiring students to write about
personal experiences with the legal system, to amplify voices and perspectives that formal legal
discourse rarely includes. (521)
While further research into this area may prove interesting, it's doubtful that McArdle's

thesis as outlined in this article could arouse much in the way of controversy. The idea of
providing future lawyers with a more confident and personal style, while at the same time
providing them with the all skills for competent professional writing, has to be a welcome one in
the legal discourse community. In a court of law, persuasion can win a case. In this article,
McCardle makes hers.

Work Cited
McArdle, Andrea, Teaching Writing In Clinical and Legal Writing Courses: Negotiating
Personal and Professional Voice, Clinical Law Review, Spring 2006, pp. 501-539