words to use in law essays

Username or email  *

Password  *

Forgotten password?

[email protected]

+44 (0)20 8834 4579

How to Write a First-Class Law Essay

Studying law at university entails lots of essay writing. This article takes you through the key steps to writing a top law essay.

Writing a law essay can be a challenging task. As a law student, you’ll be expected to analyse complex legal issues and apply legal principles to real-world scenarios. At the same time, you’ll need to be able to communicate your ideas clearly and persuasively. In this article, we’ll cover some top tips to guide you through the process of planning, researching, structuring and writing a first-class law essay with confidence. 

1. Start In Advance

Give yourself plenty of time to plan, research and write your law essay. Always aim to start your law essay as soon as you have the question. Leaving it until the last minute does not only create unnecessary stress, but it also leaves you insufficient time to write, reference and perfect your work.

2. Understand The Question

Do not begin until you fully comprehend the question. Take the time to read the question carefully and make sure that you understand what it’s asking you to do. Highlight key terms and annotate the question with definitions of key concepts and any questions that you have have. Think about how the question links back to what you’ve learned during your lectures or through your readings.

3. Conduct Thorough Research

Conducting thorough research around your topic is one of the most fundamental parts of the essay writing process. You should aim to use a range of relevant sources, such as cases, academic articles, books and any other legal materials. Ensure that the information you collect is taken from relevant, reliable and up to date sources. Use primary over secondary material as much as possible.

Avoid using outdated laws and obscure blog posts as sources of information. Always aim to choose authoritative sources from experts within the field, such as academics, politicians, lawyers and judges. Using high-quality and authoritative sources and demonstrating profound and critical insight into your topic are what will earn you top marks.

4. Write A Detailed Plan

Once you’ve done your research, it’s time to plan your essay. When writing your plan, you’ll need to create an outline that clearly identifies the main points that you wish to make throughout your article. Try to write down what you wish to achieve in each paragraph, what concepts you want to discuss and arguments you want to make.

Your outline should be organised in a clear, coherent and logical manner to ensure that the person grading your essay can follow your line of thought and arguments easily.  You may also wish to include headings and subheadings to structure your essay effectively This makes it easier when it comes to writing the essay as starting without a plan can get messy. The essay must answer the question and nothing but the question so ensure all of your points relate to it.

Start Writing Like A Lawyer

Read our legal writing tips now

5. Write A Compelling Introduction

A great introduction should, firstly, outline the research topic.  The introduction is one of the most crucial parts of the law essay as it sets the tone for the rest of the paper. It should capture the readers attention and provide the background context on the topic. Most importantly, it should state the thesis of your essay.

When writing your introduction, avoid simply repeating the given question. Secondly, create a road map for the reader, letting them know how the essay will approach the question. Your introduction must be concise. The main body of the essay is where you will go into detail.

6. Include A Strong Thesis Statement

Your thesis should clearly set out the argument you are going to be making throughout your essay and should normally go in the introduction. Your thesis should adopt a clear stance rather than being overly general or wishy-washy. To obtain the best grades, you’ll need to show a unique perspective based upon a critical analysis of the topic rather than adopting the most obvious point of view.

Once you’ve conducted your research and had a chance to reflect on your topic, ask yourself whether you can prove your argument within the given word count or whether you would need to adopt a more modest position for your paper. Always have a clear idea of what your thesis statement is before you begin writing the content of your essay. 

7. Present the Counter-argument

To demonstrate your deeper understanding of the topic, it’s important to show your ability to consider the counter-arguments and address them in a careful and reasoned manner. When presenting your counterarguments, aim to depict them in the best possible light, aiming to be fair and reasonable before moving on to your rebuttal. To ensure that your essay is convincing, you will need to have a strong rebuttal that explains why your argument is stronger and more persuasive. This will demonstrate your capacity for critical analysis, showing the reader that you have carefully considered differing perspectives before coming to a well-supported conclusion.

8. End With A Strong Conclusion

Your conclusion is your opportunity to summarise the key points made throughout your essay and to restate the thesis statement in a clear and concise manner.  Avoid simply repeating what has already been mentioned in the body of the essay. For top grades, you should use the conclusion as an opportunity to provide critical reflection and analysis on the topic. You may also wish to share any further insights or recommendations into alternative avenues to consider or implications for further research that could add value to the topic. 

9. Review The Content Of Your Essay

Make sure you factor in time to edit the content of your essay.  Once you’ve finished your first draft, come back to it the next day. Re-read your essay with a critical perspective. Do your arguments make sense? Do your paragraphs flow in a logical manner? You may also consider asking someone to read your paper and give you critical feedback. They may be able to add another perspective you haven’t considered or suggest another research paper that could add value to your essay. 

10. Proofread For Grammatical Mistakes

Once you’re happy with the content of your essay, the last step is to thoroughly proofread your essay for any grammatical errors. Ensure that you take time to ensure that there are no grammar, spelling or punctuation errors as these can be one of the easiest ways to lose marks. You can ask anyone to proofread your paper, as they would not necessarily need to have a legal background – just strong grammar and spelling skills! 

11. Check Submission Guidelines

Before submitting, ensure that your paper conforms with the style, referencing and presentation guidelines set out by your university. This includes the correct font, font size and line spacing as well as elements such as page numbers, table of content etc. Referencing is also incredibly important as you’ll need to make sure that you are following the correct referencing system chosen by your university. Check your university’s guidelines about what the word count is and whether you need to include your student identification number in your essay as well. Be thorough and don’t lose marks for minor reasons!

12. Use Legal Terms Accurately

Always make sure that you are using legal terms accurately throughout your essay. Check an authoritative resource if you are unsure of any definitions. While being sophisticated is great, legal jargon if not used correctly or appropriately can weaken your essay. Aim to be concise and to stick to the point. Don’t use ten words when only two will do.

12. Create a Vocabulary Bank

One recurring piece of advice from seasoned law students is to take note of phrases from books and articles, key definitions or concepts and even quotes from your professors. When it comes to writing your law essay, you will have a whole range of ideas and vocabulary that will help you to develop your understanding and thoughts on a given topic. This will make writing your law essay even easier!

13. Finally, Take Care of Yourself

Last but certainly not least, looking after your health can improve your attitude towards writing your law essay your coursework in general. Sleep, eat, drink and exercise appropriately. Take regular breaks and try not to stress. Do not forget to enjoy writing the essay!

Words by Karen Fulton

Free Guides

Our free guides cover everything from deciding on law to studying and practising law abroad. Search through our vast directory.

Upcoming Events

Explore our events for aspiring lawyers. Sponsored by top institutions, they offer fantastic insights into the legal profession.

Join Our Newsletter

Join our mailing list for weekly updates and advice on how to get into law.

Law Quizzes

Try our selection of quizzes for aspiring lawyers for a fun way to gain insight into the legal profession!

PREVIOUS ARTICLE

Legal Writing: Start Writing Like a Lawyer!

NEXT ARTICLE

LLM Jobs for Graduates

Loading More Content

110 Legal phrases used in Laws that every law student must know

Written by admin

Updated on: September 1, 2023

Table of Contents

110 Legal phrases & Legal Maxim used in Laws that every law student must know

1 Suo moto : own motion

2 Deeming fiction cannot be stretched beyonyd the purpose for which it is created

3 The words used in Law are not used for nothing

4 To invoke Provision: To make use of particular provision

5 Ipso Facto: By this fact alone or because of this matter alone

6 ‘MAY’ may be treated as ‘SHALL’ but ‘SHALL’ shall not be treated as ‘MAY’

7 Tenable: Acceptable in law

8 Redundant Provision : Out of Force or Outdated Provision

9 Quasi : Almost Similar to

10 Quasi-Criminal: Almost equal to criminal

11 Jurisprudence: Law relating to particular matter

12 Mensrea: Guilty Mind

13 Ibid: As printed earlier

14 Suo Moto: On its own

15 Prima Facie: On its face

16 Non est: What is not in existence / Non existing thing

17 Call in question: To challenge

18 De Nova: Completely New

19 Sine quo non: Most essential thing

20 Purposes of this Act: Proceeding must be pending

21 Reason to believe Vs Reason to suspect: Refer various caselaws

22 Derived from & attributable to: Derived from refers to direct connection with a particular matter whereas attributable to refers to an indirect connection

23 Mutatis Mutandis: After making necessary changes as may be required

24 Discovery Vs Detection: Discovery is made by the assessee whereas detection is done by the Assessing Officer

25 To Quash: The process of cancelling the proceeding of Assessing Authorities by Judicial Authorities

26 So far as may be: To the extent possible

27 Travisity of Justice : A ridiculous interpretation of a very serious statement, making a mockery of a very serious matter

28 To impugne : To challenge

29 Save as otherwise provided : Except to the extent as oppositely provided

30 If one section is overriding the other section : Use Words “Not withstanding anything contained in ……”

31 If one section is superceded by the other section: Use words “Save as otherwise provided………..”

32 Other provisions apply in General way: Use words “Without prejudice to the provisions ……………..” 33 Reckoned: Recognised, Counted, Calculated 34 Doctrine of Merger: When an order passed by the lower authority is superseded by the higher authority

35 Doctrine: Principle or saying in general acceptance

36 In Pari Material Pavi Causa: Same material, same content {Eg. Sec. 24B of IT Act, 1922 is Pari Material with Sec. 159 of IT Act, 1961. In such a case a judgement given in respect of section 24B would be valid in respect of sec. 159}

37 Per se : By itself

38 Cy Press : As near as possible

39 Tax is always charged, Interest is levied and Penalty is imposed

40 Deductions are admissible, Relief is granted. 41 Return is always furnished, the Assessment order is made / passed. 42 De hors : Independent of

43 Order of Injunction of HC : Stay order. 44 Several Liability means separate liability. [Refer sections 168(3), 171(7), 179(1) 178(5) & 188A.] 45 Legatee is a person for whose benefit there exists an asset of a deceased

46 Locus Standi: Directly involved in relation or deal. 47 Garnishee Proceeding: The proceeding that gives Govt. the right to attach (i.e. forcibly take over) any asset from a person who is a defaulter. 48 Vitiate Proceedings: To make proceedings null, and void. 49 Inter alia : Among other things.

50 Audit Altream partem: It is a principle of natural justice. According to this principle, which is the principle in every civilized jurisprudence, a person against whom any action is sought to be taken or a person whose rights or interests are to be affected should be given a reasonable opportunity to defend himself.  

51 Resjudicata :

[Once the decision of HC comes then on that same point again appeal cannot be made.] The issue of Law which has been already decided shall not be pleaded for review.

52 In Limine: At the outset (i.e. at the beginning) 53 Suspended animus: An order under Appeal is not subject to any action by any authority till the order disposing of the appeal is available. 54 Subjudice: Under an appeal to a court, decision awaited. 55 Adjudicate: Consider for judgement. A court adjudicates means gives its decision on a particular matter. 56 Akin: Similar to; of the same type Coterminus: Similar to; of the same type 57 Impediment: Obstacles or Hindrance. 58 Sine Di: For indefinite period. 59 To deduce: Logically come to the conclusion.

60 Purview: Scope

61 Bounty: Additional Advantage 62 Ad Hoc: Without any particular rate, percentage, proportion. 63 Ad infinitum: Without any Time limit. 64 Ad interim: In the Mean Time 65 Bonafide: Genuine 66 Surmises: Presumptions, own assumptions 67 Defacto: Infact 68 Defjure: In Law, irrespective of whatever the facts. 69 Ejusdem Generis : Of the same kind 70 Ex-gratia : As a matter of grace ir favour 71 Ignorantia Legis known excusat : Ignorance of law is not excused 72 Mesne Profit : Profit earned by somebody by wrongful possession of property. 73 Modus Operandi : Mode of Operation / Manner of working 74 Nexus : Close connection link. 75 Onus probandi: Onus of proof / The burden of Proof.

76 Non obnstante clause: That provision has a superseding effect on any other provision

77 Raison D’etre:

Reason or justification for existence. 78 Ratio Decidendi: Reason for deciding / Grounds for decision 79 Suijuris : of his own right. 80 Assessee engaged in ……………. : The activity should have started 81 Option Vs Discretion: Whenever choices is available to the assessee in respect of any matter. Law uses the word at his option – for eg: 1. Sec 11(11) – Explanation to Sec. 11 (11) 2. Sec. 23(4)

82 amicus curiae : Friend of court; one who voluntarily or on invitation of the court, and not on instructions of any party, helps the court in any judicial proceedings 83 audi alteram : hear the other side. Both sides should be heard before a decision is arrived at

84 caveat emptor:

let the purchaser beware. A ———- implying that the buyer must be cautious, as the risk is his and not that of the seller. 85 cestui que trust: a beneficiary under a trust, the person for whose benefit the trust is created 86 ex officio: by virtue of an office. 87 ex parte: expression used to signify something done or said by one person not in the presence of his opponent. 88 f ait accompli: An accomplished act.

89 obiter diccum:

an opinion of law not necessary to the decision. An expression of opinion (formed) by a judge on a question immaterial to the ratio decidendi, and unnecessary for the decision of the particular case. It is no way binding on any court, but may receive attention as being an opinion of the high authority.

90 pendente lite: during litigation.

91 per incuriam: through carelessness, through inadvertence. A decision of the court is not binding precedent if given peer incuriam, that is, without the court’s attention having been drawn to the relevant authorities, or statutes.

92 pro tanto: to that extent, for so much, for as much as may be. 93 quid pro quo : the giving of one thing of value for another thing of value; one for the other; thing given as compensation.

94 Ratio Decidendi: Reason for deciding / Grounds for decision 95 res integra : an untouched matter; a point without a precedent; a case of novel impression. 96 rule njsi : a rule to show cause why a party should not do a certain act, or why the object of the rule should not be enforced.

97 in personam: against the person; an act or preceeding done or directed with reference to no specific person or with reference to all whom it might concern. 98 in rem : an act / proceeding done or directed with reference to no specific person or with refernce to all whom it might concern. 99 inter vivos : between living persons.

100 intestate: a person is deemed to die intestate in respect of property of which he or she has not made a testamentary disposition (“will”) capable of taking effect. 101 intra vires: within the powers; within the authority given by law. 102 ipse dixit: he himself said it; there is no other authority.

103 ipso jure: by the law itself ; by the mere operation of law. 104 lis pe ndens : a pending suit. 105 rule absolute : when, having heard counsels, court directs the performance of that act forthwith.

Also Read: Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 : Power and Function of Arbitration

106 sine die: without delay. 107 stare decisis: to stand by things decided; to abide by precedents where the same points come again in litigation. 108 status quo: existing condition. 109 sub judice: before a judge or court; pending decision of a competent court.

110 ultra vires : beyond one’s power..

Important Judgment of High Court- April 2018

20:-may:-2018 important decision high court & supreme court.

Related Post

AOR Exam Leading Cases Supreme Court

Cuet pg llm syllabus 2024: subject-wise syllabus details, what to look for in a criminal lawyer, sources and schools of hindu marriage act, 1955, leave a comment cancel reply.

Notify me of follow-up comments by email.

Notify me of new posts by email.

Latest News

Law Internship in IPR & Tax Law at Our Legal World

4th Bombay Bar Association – GLC International Law Summit, 2024 

Interpreting Emojis in Legal Battles: A Case Study

Redemption and Release of Gold under the Customs Act, 1962

Key legal tips everyone should know: understanding serious offenses.

TAX LAWS CLUB

Privacy Policy

© Ourlegalworld | All rights reserved

Privacy Policy | Sitemap

© OurLegalWrld | All rights reserved

Privacy Policy | Disclaimer | About Us | Contact Us

• IMC Library
• Library Guides

Legal Method, Research and Writing

• Academic Writing in Law
• Legal Research Basics
• Law Database Guides
• Referencing in Law
• Other Research Resources for Law

Email Ettiquette

THE BASIC RULES

• Don't use an unprofessional email address
• Start with a new e-mail
• Include an appropriate subject heading
• Write a salutation
• Write well!  
• Provide context and background information
• Write a clear and concise message
• Sign your name
• Proofread the e-mail
• Allow adequate time for a reply
• Writing Professional Emails More detailed advice about how to write emails to academic staff

Academic Writing and Research in Law

• UTS Guide to Writing in Law A highly recommended helpful and comprehensive guide to writing law papers.
• Monash University Guide to Writing in Law Law writing guide with helpful Q&A's and tips for planning out case argumentation.
• University of Queensland Legal Research Essentials Introduction to Legal Research by The University of Queensland, Australia

Other Help:

• Quoting, Paraphrasing, Summarising The basic differences in how to writes quotes, how to write paraphrases, and how to write summaries of the sources you find.

Basic Rules

Academic and professional legal writing requires you to develop an argument and demonstrate relationships between the ideas you are expressing. 

Therefore, the ability to express yourself clearly and accurately is important.  Here you will find information to help you improve your writing for any purpose in your law degree.

Academic writing in law is:

Academic writing in law does not:   

Steps to Writing a Law Essay

Throughout your law degree, you will be expected to write a range of different texts, including research essays, responses to problem questions, and case notes.

Not matter the type of text you are asked to produce for an assignment, make sure you follow these steps:

• Plan :  read the questions carefully and think about how you will answer it
• Research :  read, read and read! Make use of everything available to you - don't forget the library!
• Make thorough notes : include all important (and relevant) details and quotes and take note of the source. Make sure you organise your notes so as to make the writing task easier
• Write the first draft :  before you start writing your first draft, refer back to your initial plan and make any necessary changes now you have done your research and gathered your notes. 
• Review and edit :  remember to proofread your work!

The IRAC Method

IRAC is an acronym that stands for: Issue, Rule, Application, and Conclusion. It functions as a methodology for legal analysis and is used as a framework for organising your answer to an essay question in law school.

[ Open All | Close All ]

In legal writing, issues are the core of the essay.

This part of the essay should:

• Identify and state the issue
• Name those involved (plaintiff and defendant) and briefly describe their individual issues
• Work out what body of law may govern the resolution of the issue (e.g. Contract Law)

The rule describes which law applies to the issue. The rule should be stated as a general principle, and not a conclusion to the particular case being briefed.

• Outline the legal principles that will be used to address to the issue
• Source legal principles from cases and legislation

The application is the most important and longest part of your answer. It involves applying the Rule to the facts of the issue and demonstrating how those facts do or do not meet the requirements laid down by the rules. Discuss both sides of the case when possible.

• Explain why the plaintiff's claims are or are not justified
• Identify how the law will be used by the plaintiff and defendant to argue their case
• Use relevant cases and legal principles to support your writing
• Do not try to strengthen your argument by leaving out elements or facts that will hurt it

As with all essays, the conclusion is a statement that identifies your answer to the issue.

• Identify what the result of your argument ir, or what it should be
• State who is liable for what and to what extent
• Consider how the plaintiff and defendant could have acted to avoid this legal issue

Useful Links:

• UWA IRAC Guide This guide from the University of Western Australia offers examples of how the IRAC method can be applied to different cases.
• Law School Survival: The IRAC Method A useful site that presents a detailed outline of the IRAC method as well as skeleton outlines.

Law Writing Media

Additional Resource

Featured Resource

Further Support

Related Guides

Proofreading Tool

• Last Updated: Jan 17, 2024 3:38 PM
• URL: https://top-au.libguides.com/legal-method-research-and-writing

Copyright © 2019 Australian National Institute of Management and Commerce (IMC) Registered Higher Education Provider TEQSA PRV12059 | CRICOS 02491D Top Education Group Ltd ACN 098 139 176 trading as Australian National Institute of Management and Commerce (IMC) All content is subject to change.

16 Legal Writing Tips for Powerful, Persuasive Legal Writing: How to Write an Effective Legal Argument

As a lawyer, you know that the ability to write effectively is a key skill. In order to persuade judges and jurors, you need to be able to write with clarity and power.

In this blog post, we will discuss 15 tips for writing an effective legal argument. Following these tips will help you produce powerful legal writing that is sure to make an impact.

Table of Contents

16 Legal Writing Tips for Powerful, Persuasive Legal Writing

Tip #01: start with a strong introduction.

Your introduction is the most important part of your argument. It is the first thing that the judge or jury will read, and it needs to be strong in order to capture their attention. Make sure to introduce your argument clearly and succinctly, and make sure to state why you are making the argument. You should also include a preview of what you will be discussing later in your argument.

Tip #02: Use Clear and Concise Language

When writing an argument, it is important to use clear and concise language. This will help ensure that your point is understood by all who are reading it. Do not use complex words or legal jargon unless absolutely necessary – keep things simple so that everyone can understand what you are trying to say!

Tip #03: Use Short Sentences and Paragraphs

When writing an argument, it is important to use short sentences and paragraphs. This will help ensure that your point is understood by all who are reading it. Do not use complex words or legal jargon unless absolutely necessary – keep things simple so that everyone can understand what you are trying to say!

Tip #04: Write in the Active Voice

The active voice makes for more powerful writing than the passive voice. When possible, try using the active voice instead of passive constructions (e.g., “The judge ruled against us” rather than “We were ruled against by the judge”).

Tip #05: Use Strong and Impactful Language

When writing an argument, it is important to use strong and impactful language. This will help your argument stand out from the rest and make a lasting impression on the reader. Use powerful words that convey your message clearly and effectively.

Tip #06: Make Your Argument Easy to Follow

Your argument should be easy to follow from beginning to end. Make sure to structure it in a logical way, and use headings and subheadings to break up your content into manageable chunks. This will make it easier for the reader to understand what you are saying, and they will be less likely to get lost along the way.

Tip #07: Be Clear and Concise

It is important to be clear and concise when writing an argument. This means stating your point clearly and without any ambiguity. It also means using short sentences and paragraphs, so that the reader can easily follow your train of thought.

Tip #08: Use Supporting Evidence

When making an argument, it is important to back up your points with evidence. This will help strengthen your case and make it more persuasive. Make sure to cite reputable sources in order to support your points.

Tip #09: Be Thorough and Comprehensive

When writing an argument, it is important to be thorough and comprehensive. This means discussing all aspects of the issue at hand, from beginning to end. Do not leave anything out – this will only weaken your argument.

Tip #11: Use Quotations judiciously

When quoting someone else, make sure that you use it sparingly. Quoting someone else can help support your argument, but only if it is done correctly. Make sure to properly attribute the quote to its source, and make sure that it supports your point.

Tip #12: Stay on Point

It is important to stay on point when writing an argument. This means discussing only the issue at hand, and not straying off topic. If you start discussing irrelevant points, you will lose the reader’s attention and weaken your argument.

Tip #13: Be Concise and To-the-Point

When writing an argument, be concise and to-the-point. This means stating your point clearly without any ambiguity or unnecessary words. It also means using short sentences and paragraphs, so that the reader can easily follow your train of thought.

Tip #14: Use Headings and Subheadings

When writing an argument, it is important to use headings and subheadings where appropriate. These will help structure your content into manageable chunks, which makes it easier for the reader to understand what you are saying. They also look more professional than just having one big block of text on a page!

Tip #15: Write With Confidence

When writing an argument, be confident in what you are saying. This means being clear about why you believe a way and not being afraid to express your opinion. It also means using strong language, so that the reader knows you mean what you say.

Tip #16: Proofread Your Work

When writing an argument, make sure to proofread your work before submitting. This will help ensure that there are no spelling or grammatical errors in it, which could weaken your case if they were present when it went to court. It also gives you a chance to check for any mistakes that might have been made during the writing process .

What Writing Style is Used in Legal Writing?

Legal writing style is formal , objective and concise. It uses clear, simple language to communicate with the reader.

The goal is to present an argument in a way that is easy to follow and understand. Lawyers must be precise when stating their point, and use evidence to support their argument.

Quotations should be used sparingly, and only if they support the main points of the argument.

Headings and subheadings are also helpful in organizing content and making it easier for the reader to follow. Finally, legal writers should always write with confidence – this helps convey the message clearly and effectively.

Use this as a checklist to make sure your legal argument is effective:

• State your point clearly and without any ambiguity.
• Use supporting evidence.
• Be thorough and comprehensive in your discussion.
• Stay on point.
• Use headings and subheadings where appropriate.
• Write with confidence.
• Proofread your work carefully before submitting it.

Major Reference Styles in Legal Writing and Research

When writing a legal document , you must use an accepted format for citations. There are three primary styles used in legal writing:

• The Bluebook,
• The ALWD Citation Manual, and
• The Harvard Law Review Association’s Style Guide.

The Bluebook is the most commonly used citation style in the United States. It was developed by lawyers and professors at Columbia University and is published by the Harvard Law Review Association. The Bluebook contains rules for citing case law , statutes, court decisions, administrative rulings, books, articles, and other sources.

The ALWD Citation Manual was created to simplify the rules of the Bluebook. It was written by two law professors at Yale University and is published by Aspen Publishers. The ALWD Citation Manual is designed for legal writers and researchers who want to use a citation style that is easy to learn and follow.

The Harvard Law Review Association’s Style Guide is based on the Bluebook, but contains additional information about citations to Internet sources, unpublished works, and other sources. It was written by the staff of the Harvard Law Review Association.

Which reference style you choose is up to you. However, it is important to be consistent in your citations throughout your document.

Citing Cases Correctly

When citing a case in your legal writing, you must include certain elements: the name of the court, the year of the decision, and the volume number of the case reporter. You must also include either page numbers or paragraph numbers if you are citing to a specific passage in the case.

Citing a US Supreme Court Decision

If you are citing to a U.S. Supreme Court decision, you must include the name of the petitioner and respondent, as well as the docket number of the case.

Here is an example of how to cite a case:

Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 48 (1954).

In this example, Brown v. Board of Education is the name of the case, 347 U.S. 48 is the year of the decision, and 19th ed. is volume number of the case reporter. Page numbers would be included if you were citing to a specific passage in the opinion, while paragraph numbers would be included if you were citing to a specific passage in the opinion.

Citing a Case from an Official Reporter

To cite a case from an official reporter, you must include the name of the court and year of decision. The page numbers are not required but may be included if you are citing to a specific passage in the opinion.

United States v. Jones, No. 06-CR-0274 (N.D. Ill.).

In this example, “United States v.” refers to volume number while “06-CR” refers to Reporter series number and “274” (“J”) is case number within that series; “(N .D .Ill.)” identifies jurisdiction where docketed or decided if not obvious from report abbreviation; “[defendant]” is party name against whom suit was filed, which is why it’s important to know abbreviations for court names.

Citing a Case from an Unofficial reporter

To cite a case from an unofficial reporter, you must include the name of the court and year of decision. The page numbers are not required but may be included if you are citing to a specific passage in the opinion.

People v. Rios, No. 00-CF-2227 (Cook Cty., Ill., Cir. Ct.).

In this example, “People v.” refers to volume number while “00-CF” refers to docket number within that volume; “(Cook Cty ., Ill.)” identifies jurisdiction where decided if not obvious from report abbreviation; “[defendant]” is party name against whom suit was filed.

Citing a Case from an Electronic Database

When citing a case from an electronic database, you must include the name of the court and year of decision. The page numbers are not required but may be included if you are citing to a specific passage in the opinion.

United States v. Jones, No. 06-CR-0274 (N .D. Ill.).

Citing a Case Published by Multiple Reporters

To cite a case that has been published in multiple reporters, you must include the name of the first reporter and year of decision. The page numbers are not required but may be included if you are citing to a specific passage in the opinion.

United States v. Jones, No .06-CR-0274 (N .D .Ill.).

In this example, “United States v.” refers to volume number while “06-CR” refers to Reporter series number and “274” (“J”) is case number within that series; “(N .D.Ill.)” identifies jurisdiction where docketed or decided if not obvious from report abbreviation; “[defendant]” is party name against whom suit was filed, which is why it’s important to know abbreviations for court names.

Citing a Statute

When citing a statute, you must include the name of the state and year of publication. The page numbers are not required but may be included if you are citing to a specific passage in the statute.

Here is an example of how to cite a statute:

Illinois Compiled Statutes § 510/0.01 (2010).

In this example, “Illinois Compiled Statutes” refers to the title of the statute while “§ 510/0.01” refers to the section number within that title; “(2010)” identifies year of publication.

Citing a Law Review Article

When citing a law review article, you must include the author’s name, title of the article, and name of the journal. The page numbers are not required but may be included if you are citing to a specific passage in the article.

Here is an example of how to cite a law review article:

David Siegel, The New Wigmore: A Treatise on Evidence § 11-18 (West 2010).

In this example, “David Siegel” refers to author’s first and last name while “The New Wigmore: A Treatise on Evidence” refers to title of article; “$ 11-18” refers to pages cited within that article; “(West 2010)” identifies publisher and year of publication.

Citing a Law Review Case Note

When citing a law review case note, you must include the author’s name, title of the note, and name of the journal. The page numbers are not required but may be included if you are citing to a specific passage in the note.

Here is an example of how to cite a law review case note:

David Siegel & Elizabeth Smith, Case Note: In re A .B .C., 127 Harv. L. Rev .1549 (2014).

In this example, “David Siegel & Elizabeth Smith” refers to authors’ names while “Case Note: In re A .B.C.” refers to title of note; “$ 127 Harv. L. Rev .” refers to pages cited within that note; “(2014)” identifies year of publication.

Citing a Secondary Source

When citing a secondary source, you must include the author’s name, title of the book or article, and publisher. The page numbers are not required but may be included if you are citing to a specific passage in the book or article.

Here is an example of how to cite a secondary source:

James Weinstein, Legal Writing: How to Write CLEARLY, POWERFULLY, and Persuasively (Aspen Publishers 2009).

In this example, “James Weinstein” refers to author’s first and last name while “Legal Writing: How to Write CLEARLY, POWERFULLY, and Persuasively” refers to title of book; “(Aspen Publishers 2009)” identifies publisher and year of publication.

What Makes a Good Citation in Legal Writing and Research?

Now that you have seen some examples of how citations work, let’s look at what makes a good citation.

A good citation should be clear and concise so that the reader can find it easily in any law library or online database for legal research. A good citation also avoids using abbreviations when possible because these make citations difficult to understand without knowing their meaning first hand which is why many people prefer full text versions over cited ones with lots of abbreviation usage throughout them . The following are some common abbreviations used within legal writing:

• · N.Y. Times v . Sullivan, 376 US 254 (1964)
• · Roe v Wade 410 U S 113 1973
• · Brown v Board of Education 347 US 48 (1954)
• · Miranda v Arizona 384 US 436 (1966)

You can see how these abbreviations make citations difficult to understand without knowing their meaning first hand which is why many people prefer full text versions over cited ones with lots of abbreviation usage throughout them . The following are some common abbreviations used within legal writing:

N=North America, V = Verdict, F and/or Con Law = Constitutional Law; P&P or POE = Procedure & Practices, Eq law=Equity Legislation , Taxation Laws etc. All other terms should be self-explanatory if you want more information about those subjects contact any university’s library for assistance on finding books that provide explanations about specific topics that interest you.

Just remember not to rely too much on abbreviations because these make citations difficult to understand without knowing their meaning first hand which is why many people prefer full text versions over cited ones with lots of abbreviation usage throughout them.

Common Mistakes in Legal Writing and Research

When it comes to legal writing, there are a few common mistakes that many lawyers make. In this section, we will discuss some of the most common errors and how to avoid them.

Mistake # One: Not Knowing Your Audience

One of the most common mistakes in legal writing is not knowing your audience. When you are drafting a legal argument or brief, you need to keep your audience in mind at all times. You need to tailor your argument to fit their needs and understanding. If you try to address too broad an audience or use complex language, you will lose your readers quickly.

To ensure that you are addressing your audience correctly, take the time to understand who they are. What is their level of legal knowledge? What are their interests? What is the most important thing to them in this case? Once you have a good understanding of your audience, you can tailor your argument to fit them perfectly.

Mistake # Two: Not Organizing Your Argument Properly

Another common mistake in legal writing is not organizing your argument properly. When you are drafting a legal document, it is important to be clear and concise. You need to make sure that your argument flows logically from beginning to end. If you jump around or introduce new ideas partway through your document, you will confuse your readers and lose their attention.

To organize your argument effectively, start by outlining what you want to say. Group related points together and order them logically. Make sure all of your evidence and reasoning is clear and easy to follow. If you can keep your argument organized, you will be able to make a strong case for your position.

Mistake # Three: Failing to Use Persuasive Language

In legal writing, it is important to use persuasive language. When you are trying to win an argument, you need to use words that will convince your readers of your point of view. If you are too vague or indirect, you will not be able to persuade anyone.

To use persuasive language effectively, start by making strong statements. Use concrete examples and evidence to back up your points. Be assertive in your writing and avoid using qualifiers such as “maybe” or “perhaps.” Stay focused on the issue at hand and avoid getting sidetracked by irrelevant details.

Mistake # Four: Using Legal Jargon Without Explanation

Another common mistake in legal writing is using legal jargon without explanation. In order to be persuasive, you need to make sure that your readers understand what you are saying. If they do not know the meaning of a word or phrase, they will have a hard time following your argument. To ensure that all of your readers can follow along easily, provide definitions for any unfamiliar words or phrases.

Mistake # Five: Not Proofreading Your Work

In legal writing, it is important to proofread your work to make sure that there are no mistakes. If you do not take the time to proofread your documents, you will lose credibility with your readers. 

To make sure that all of your writing is error-free before submitting it for publication or use in court, run a spell check and grammar check on every document that you write. You may also want to have someone else reading over what you wrote as well just so they can catch any errors that might be missed by spellcheck alone.

Mistake # Six: Verbocity – Using Too Many Words

In legal writing, it is important to use as few words as possible. If you are not careful about how many words you use in a sentence or paragraph, it will be hard for your readers to follow along with what you’re saying. The more concise and clear your documents are, the easier they will be to read and understand by all involved parties. 

To make sure that all of your documents are easy on the eyes of those reading them over time, keep each piece under 500 words when possible while still getting the point across without any confusion whatsoever (although sometimes this may not always work out perfectly depending on what needs explaining).

Mistake # Seven: Not Using Active Voice

In legal writing, it is important to use active voice rather than passive voice. When you are using passive voice, the subject of your sentence comes before the verb and there is no object in between them as well as being a generic subject (examples include “The document was signed by all parties” or “The witness testified under oath”). 

By having this structure set up, it makes things easier for everyone involved at various stages throughout each case where information must be relayed from one person to another without any confusion whatsoever on what exactly needs doing next so that nothing gets missed when moving onto step two after completing step one successfully. It’s also much more efficient since these documents tend not to get lost either way and can be easily accessed when needed again later down the road.

Mistake # Eight: Not Using Well-Researched Evidence

When you are writing a legal document, it is important to use evidence that has been well researched. 

You need to make sure that your sources are reliable and up-to-date if possible before presenting them as such within any statement or argument being made by anyone involved at all times throughout each case where information must be relayed from one person to another without any confusion whatsoever on what exactly needs doing next so nothing gets missed when moving onto step two after completing step one successfully because, these documents tend not get lost either way which makes things easier for everyone involved at various stages throughout each case where information must be relayed from one person to another.

Mistake # Nine: Not Formatting Documents Correctly

When you are writing a legal document, it is important to format it correctly. This means using the correct font, margins, and spacing. If your documents are not formatted correctly, they will be difficult for your readers to read and understand. To make sure that your documents are easy on the eyes of those reading them over time, use a standard font like Times New Roman or Arial, set your margins at one inch all around, and use double-spacing between lines.

Mistake # Ten: Not Using Consistent Language

In legal writing, it is important to use consistent language. This means using the same tense throughout your document and not switching between past, present or future tenses. 

For example, if one sentence of yours begins with “The witness testified under oath,” then all sentences in that paragraph should begin with a similar phrase such as “Mr./Mrs./Ms… testified….” To make sure you are always using consistent language when writing any kind of legal document for use within court proceedings at some point down the road later on after being submitted by someone else involved who also happens to be related somehow either through marriage or other ties like their job title would indicate too since these documents tend not get lost either way. 

Try to keep each piece under 500 words when possible while still getting the point across without any confusion whatsoever (although sometimes this may not always work out perfectly depending on what needs explaining).

Mistake # Eleven: Not Proofreading Documents Carefully

Before submitting a legal document, it is important to proofread it carefully. This means checking for typos, mistakes in grammar and spelling, and formatting errors. 

If your documents are not properly proofread, they will be difficult for your readers to understand and could potentially damage your case. To make sure that your documents are error-free, triple check them for mistakes and have someone else do a final read-through as well.

Mistake # Twelve: Not Paying Attention to Detail

In legal writing, it is important to pay attention to detail. This means making sure that your documents are thorough and accurate. It is also important to be precise in your language. 

To make sure that you are paying attention to detail when drafting legal documents, take the time to read over your work several times and proofread it carefully.

Mistake # Thirteen: Failing to Follow Court Rules

When drafting legal documents, it is important to familiarize yourself with the court rules that will apply to your case. Failure to follow these rules could result in your document being thrown out of court. To make sure that you are following court rules correctly, consult a lawyer or review the court rules for your jurisdiction.

Mistake # Fourteen: Making Assumptions About the Reader’s Knowledge

When writing a legal document, it is important to remember that the reader may not have any legal knowledge. As such, you should always explain terms and concepts that the reader may not be familiar with. To make sure that your documents are easy to understand for all readers, take the time to define any terms or concepts that may be unfamiliar to them.

Mistake # Fifteen: Failing to Answer Questions Fully

When responding to a legal question, it is important to answer it fully and completely. Failure to do so could result in your opponent using your response against you in court. 

To make sure that your responses are thorough and complete, take the time to research the question thoroughly and draft a response that addresses all aspects of it.

You may avoid making these mistakes by using the following legal writing tips:

• Use a clear and concise writing style.
• Avoid vague or ambiguous language.
• Break up long sentences into shorter ones for easier reading comprehension by readers who may not want to struggle trying their best just because you didn’t give them any breaks along the way when really all that’s required from attorneys themselves is some patience on our part instead which might seem like not such an easy task these days considering how much pressure there seems to be put upon lawyers across this nation especially if they’re working hard towards making it back home safely without running out of time first before getting caught speeding through red lights late at night after having too many drinks at dinner with friends etc., but I guess what am saying here in brief summary form would be something like how even though it’s important to write clearly
• Use active voice when possible. Don’t use passive voice unless it’s absolutely necessary. Active: The plaintiff sued the defendant for negligence. Passive: The defendant was sued by the plaintiff for negligence.
• Write short, simple sentences. Long and complex sentences are difficult to read and understand. Keep your writing tight!
• Avoid using jargon or legal terms that may be unfamiliar to the reader (e.g., “heretofore”). Instead of saying something like: “The party heretofore known as Plaintiff seeks summary judgment on her claim for breach of contract.” Try this instead: “Plaintiff wants a judge’s decision without having to go all the way through trial because she thinks there is enough evidence against Defendant in order for them not only win their case but also get what they’re asking from him.” You can see how much easier it gets when we break down long sentences into smaller chunks so that even the non-legal folk can follow without feeling lost or overwhelmed.

Legal writing is an essential skill for lawyers. In order to persuade judges and jurors, you need to be able to write with clarity and power. By following these 15 tips for writing an effective legal argument, you will be able to produce powerful legal writing that is sure to make an impact. For more information on legal writing, please consult a lawyer or review the court rules for your jurisdiction. Thank you for reading!

24 thoughts on “16 Legal Writing Tips for Powerful, Persuasive Legal Writing: How to Write an Effective Legal Argument”

Wielkie biografie powstają z ruchu do przodu i progresywnego pressingu, a nie z oglądania się do tyłu. P. Coelho… & TM Created by ENdemol Studio…

Bardzo ciekawy blog, rzeczowy i wyważony. Od dzisiaj zaglądam regularnie i subsbskrybuje kanał RSS. Pozdrowienia 🙂

Wspaniałe pomysły kosztuja grosze. Bezcenni są ludzie, którzy je urzeczywistniają. Twój blog jest tego wspaniałym przykladem…

This is great, definitely will check it out, useful website, definitely will bookmark, thanks.

Thanks for the wonderful information contained here in your blog, this is a trivial quiz for your blog viewers. Who said the following quotation? . . . .A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort.

Wow! Thank you!Surf around our site for more informative content. You can as well explore our tailored content option!

I like the method that you write. Great website. Lovely understanding over listed here. Wonderful! Great Web page. I will certainly share this specific with all my friends! Thanks for your great blogs! I won’t be able to wait to confirm some those out! I love to write that type articles as if you.

Much appreciated! We do this for you!

kinda appreciated what you published actually. it really is not that easy to find good text toactually read (you know READ and not simply browsing through it like a zombie before moving on), so cheers mate for really not wasting my time on the god forsaken internet.

You are welcome mate! feel free to share this and other interesting pieces of our blog to your friends!

My hubby and I arrived here simply because this particular webpage had been tweeted by a woman I had been following and am pleased I made it here.

This post will assist the internet visitors for building up new blog or even a blog from start to end.

I agree!Thank you for the kind words.

*Im impressed, I should say. Truly rarely do I encounter a blog thats both educative and entertaining, and let me tell you, youve hit the nail on the head. Your thought is outstanding; the concern is something that not enough individuals are speaking intelligently about. I am really happy that I stumbled across this in my search for something relating to this.

Our aim is deliver what you just found! You are welcome!

in this article. a lot more articles like yours had to comment to say It is refreshing to find people who write like they know what they are talking about

Hi, after reading this remarkable paragraph i am too cheerful to share my know-how here with colleagues.

Very good blog! Do you have any tips for aspiring writers? I’m hoping to start my own website soon but I’m a little lost on everything.

Would you propose starting with a free platform like WordPress or go for a paid option? There are so many options out there that I’m completely confused .. Any ideas? Kudos!

It all depends on many things including your budgets and personal preference. Anything works as long your content gets to your audience!

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Places on our 2024 summer school are filling fast. Don’t miss out. Enrol now to avoid disappointment

• 40 Useful Words and Phrases for Top-Notch Essays

To be truly brilliant, an essay needs to utilise the right language. You could make a great point, but if it’s not intelligently articulated, you almost needn’t have bothered.

Developing the language skills to build an argument and to write persuasively is crucial if you’re to write outstanding essays every time. In this article, we’re going to equip you with the words and phrases you need to write a top-notch essay, along with examples of how to utilise them.

It’s by no means an exhaustive list, and there will often be other ways of using the words and phrases we describe that we won’t have room to include, but there should be more than enough below to help you make an instant improvement to your essay-writing skills.

If you’re interested in developing your language and persuasive skills, Oxford Royale offers summer courses at its Oxford Summer School , Cambridge Summer School , London Summer School , San Francisco Summer School and Yale Summer School . You can study courses to learn english , prepare for careers in law , medicine , business , engineering and leadership.

General explaining

Let’s start by looking at language for general explanations of complex points.

1. In order to

Usage: “In order to” can be used to introduce an explanation for the purpose of an argument. Example: “In order to understand X, we need first to understand Y.”

2. In other words

Usage: Use “in other words” when you want to express something in a different way (more simply), to make it easier to understand, or to emphasise or expand on a point. Example: “Frogs are amphibians. In other words, they live on the land and in the water.”

3. To put it another way

Usage: This phrase is another way of saying “in other words”, and can be used in particularly complex points, when you feel that an alternative way of wording a problem may help the reader achieve a better understanding of its significance. Example: “Plants rely on photosynthesis. To put it another way, they will die without the sun.”

4. That is to say

Usage: “That is” and “that is to say” can be used to add further detail to your explanation, or to be more precise. Example: “Whales are mammals. That is to say, they must breathe air.”

5. To that end

Usage: Use “to that end” or “to this end” in a similar way to “in order to” or “so”. Example: “Zoologists have long sought to understand how animals communicate with each other. To that end, a new study has been launched that looks at elephant sounds and their possible meanings.”

Adding additional information to support a point

Students often make the mistake of using synonyms of “and” each time they want to add further information in support of a point they’re making, or to build an argument . Here are some cleverer ways of doing this.

6. Moreover

Usage: Employ “moreover” at the start of a sentence to add extra information in support of a point you’re making. Example: “Moreover, the results of a recent piece of research provide compelling evidence in support of…”

7. Furthermore

Usage:This is also generally used at the start of a sentence, to add extra information. Example: “Furthermore, there is evidence to suggest that…”

8. What’s more

Usage: This is used in the same way as “moreover” and “furthermore”. Example: “What’s more, this isn’t the only evidence that supports this hypothesis.”

9. Likewise

Usage: Use “likewise” when you want to talk about something that agrees with what you’ve just mentioned. Example: “Scholar A believes X. Likewise, Scholar B argues compellingly in favour of this point of view.”

10. Similarly

Usage: Use “similarly” in the same way as “likewise”. Example: “Audiences at the time reacted with shock to Beethoven’s new work, because it was very different to what they were used to. Similarly, we have a tendency to react with surprise to the unfamiliar.”

11. Another key thing to remember

Usage: Use the phrase “another key point to remember” or “another key fact to remember” to introduce additional facts without using the word “also”. Example: “As a Romantic, Blake was a proponent of a closer relationship between humans and nature. Another key point to remember is that Blake was writing during the Industrial Revolution, which had a major impact on the world around him.”

12. As well as

Usage: Use “as well as” instead of “also” or “and”. Example: “Scholar A argued that this was due to X, as well as Y.”

13. Not only… but also

Usage: This wording is used to add an extra piece of information, often something that’s in some way more surprising or unexpected than the first piece of information. Example: “Not only did Edmund Hillary have the honour of being the first to reach the summit of Everest, but he was also appointed Knight Commander of the Order of the British Empire.”

14. Coupled with

Usage: Used when considering two or more arguments at a time. Example: “Coupled with the literary evidence, the statistics paint a compelling view of…”

15. Firstly, secondly, thirdly…

Usage: This can be used to structure an argument, presenting facts clearly one after the other. Example: “There are many points in support of this view. Firstly, X. Secondly, Y. And thirdly, Z.

16. Not to mention/to say nothing of

Usage: “Not to mention” and “to say nothing of” can be used to add extra information with a bit of emphasis. Example: “The war caused unprecedented suffering to millions of people, not to mention its impact on the country’s economy.”

Words and phrases for demonstrating contrast

When you’re developing an argument, you will often need to present contrasting or opposing opinions or evidence – “it could show this, but it could also show this”, or “X says this, but Y disagrees”. This section covers words you can use instead of the “but” in these examples, to make your writing sound more intelligent and interesting.

17. However

Usage: Use “however” to introduce a point that disagrees with what you’ve just said. Example: “Scholar A thinks this. However, Scholar B reached a different conclusion.”

18. On the other hand

Usage: Usage of this phrase includes introducing a contrasting interpretation of the same piece of evidence, a different piece of evidence that suggests something else, or an opposing opinion. Example: “The historical evidence appears to suggest a clear-cut situation. On the other hand, the archaeological evidence presents a somewhat less straightforward picture of what happened that day.”

19. Having said that

Usage: Used in a similar manner to “on the other hand” or “but”. Example: “The historians are unanimous in telling us X, an agreement that suggests that this version of events must be an accurate account. Having said that, the archaeology tells a different story.”

20. By contrast/in comparison

Usage: Use “by contrast” or “in comparison” when you’re comparing and contrasting pieces of evidence. Example: “Scholar A’s opinion, then, is based on insufficient evidence. By contrast, Scholar B’s opinion seems more plausible.”

21. Then again

Usage: Use this to cast doubt on an assertion. Example: “Writer A asserts that this was the reason for what happened. Then again, it’s possible that he was being paid to say this.”

22. That said

Usage: This is used in the same way as “then again”. Example: “The evidence ostensibly appears to point to this conclusion. That said, much of the evidence is unreliable at best.”

Usage: Use this when you want to introduce a contrasting idea. Example: “Much of scholarship has focused on this evidence. Yet not everyone agrees that this is the most important aspect of the situation.”

Adding a proviso or acknowledging reservations

Sometimes, you may need to acknowledge a shortfalling in a piece of evidence, or add a proviso. Here are some ways of doing so.

24. Despite this

Usage: Use “despite this” or “in spite of this” when you want to outline a point that stands regardless of a shortfalling in the evidence. Example: “The sample size was small, but the results were important despite this.”

25. With this in mind

Usage: Use this when you want your reader to consider a point in the knowledge of something else. Example: “We’ve seen that the methods used in the 19th century study did not always live up to the rigorous standards expected in scientific research today, which makes it difficult to draw definite conclusions. With this in mind, let’s look at a more recent study to see how the results compare.”

26. Provided that

Usage: This means “on condition that”. You can also say “providing that” or just “providing” to mean the same thing. Example: “We may use this as evidence to support our argument, provided that we bear in mind the limitations of the methods used to obtain it.”

27. In view of/in light of

Usage: These phrases are used when something has shed light on something else. Example: “In light of the evidence from the 2013 study, we have a better understanding of…”

28. Nonetheless

Usage: This is similar to “despite this”. Example: “The study had its limitations, but it was nonetheless groundbreaking for its day.”

29. Nevertheless

Usage: This is the same as “nonetheless”. Example: “The study was flawed, but it was important nevertheless.”

30. Notwithstanding

Usage: This is another way of saying “nonetheless”. Example: “Notwithstanding the limitations of the methodology used, it was an important study in the development of how we view the workings of the human mind.”

Giving examples

Good essays always back up points with examples, but it’s going to get boring if you use the expression “for example” every time. Here are a couple of other ways of saying the same thing.

31. For instance

Example: “Some birds migrate to avoid harsher winter climates. Swallows, for instance, leave the UK in early winter and fly south…”

32. To give an illustration

Example: “To give an illustration of what I mean, let’s look at the case of…”

Signifying importance

When you want to demonstrate that a point is particularly important, there are several ways of highlighting it as such.

33. Significantly

Usage: Used to introduce a point that is loaded with meaning that might not be immediately apparent. Example: “Significantly, Tacitus omits to tell us the kind of gossip prevalent in Suetonius’ accounts of the same period.”

34. Notably

Usage: This can be used to mean “significantly” (as above), and it can also be used interchangeably with “in particular” (the example below demonstrates the first of these ways of using it). Example: “Actual figures are notably absent from Scholar A’s analysis.”

35. Importantly

Usage: Use “importantly” interchangeably with “significantly”. Example: “Importantly, Scholar A was being employed by X when he wrote this work, and was presumably therefore under pressure to portray the situation more favourably than he perhaps might otherwise have done.”

Summarising

You’ve almost made it to the end of the essay, but your work isn’t over yet. You need to end by wrapping up everything you’ve talked about, showing that you’ve considered the arguments on both sides and reached the most likely conclusion. Here are some words and phrases to help you.

36. In conclusion

Usage: Typically used to introduce the concluding paragraph or sentence of an essay, summarising what you’ve discussed in a broad overview. Example: “In conclusion, the evidence points almost exclusively to Argument A.”

37. Above all

Usage: Used to signify what you believe to be the most significant point, and the main takeaway from the essay. Example: “Above all, it seems pertinent to remember that…”

38. Persuasive

Usage: This is a useful word to use when summarising which argument you find most convincing. Example: “Scholar A’s point – that Constanze Mozart was motivated by financial gain – seems to me to be the most persuasive argument for her actions following Mozart’s death.”

39. Compelling

Usage: Use in the same way as “persuasive” above. Example: “The most compelling argument is presented by Scholar A.”

40. All things considered

Usage: This means “taking everything into account”. Example: “All things considered, it seems reasonable to assume that…”

How many of these words and phrases will you get into your next essay? And are any of your favourite essay terms missing from our list? Let us know in the comments below, or get in touch here to find out more about courses that can help you with your essays.

At Oxford Royale Academy, we offer a number of  summer school courses for young people who are keen to improve their essay writing skills. Click here to apply for one of our courses today, including law , business , medicine  and engineering .

Comments are closed.

English for Lawyers: 30 Most Common Words Used in Law

1. Defendant /dɪˈfɛndənt/

2. evidence  /ˈɛvɪdəns/, 3. jurisdiction /dʒʊr.ɪsˈdɪk.ʃən/.

4. Charge: /tʃɑːrdʒ/

5. Liability /ˌlīəˈbilədē/

6. injunction /ɪnˈdʒʌŋkʃən/ , 7. damages /ˈdamijiz/, 8. precedent /ˈpres.ə.dent/, 9. appeal /əˈpēl/, 10. habeas corpus /ˌhābēəs ˈkôrpəs/ , 11. appellate /əˈpɛlət/, 12. arbitration /ˌärbəˈtrāshən/, 13. deposition /depəˈzishən/, 14. alibi /ˈaləˌbī/, 15. probate /ˈprōbāt/, 16. testimony /ˈtɛstəˌmoʊni/, 17. felony /ˈfelənē/, 18. misdemeanor /ˌmisdəˈmēnər/, 19. admissible /ədˈmisəb(ə)l/, 20. case /keɪs/ , 21. discovery /dɪˈskʌvəri/, 22. litigation /ˌlɪt̬.əˈɡeɪ.ʃən/, 23. impeachment /ɪmˈpitʃmənt/ , 24. acquittal /əˈkwɪtəl/, 25. bail /beɪl/, 26. juror /ˈdʒʊrər/, 27. petition /pəˈtɪʃən/, 28. witness /ˈwɪtnəs/, 29. arrest /əˈrɛst/ , 30. subpoena /səˈpiːnə/, how to master legal english vocabulary, improve your legal english and advance your law career.

English language for lawyers can be somewhat tactical compared to that used in everyday communication. This is because there is a lot of legal jargon flying around in this space, whether within or outside the courtroom. These words, more often than not, convey straightforward concepts in reality. 

Be that as it may, it is essential to familiarize oneself with these terms as they facilitate effective communication, particularly when interacting with legal professionals. A robust grasp of English vocabulary for lawyers not only contributes to one's eloquence but also reflects competence as a professional .

In this article, we have curated 30 of the most common words used in law that can help you get started, whether you’re a foreign lawyer or a seasoned professional looking to expand their vocabulary.

Pronounced "di-FEN-duhnt," this word refers to an individual or organization accused of committing a wrongful act or violating the law. The defendant is typically required to respond to the allegations and defend themselves in court. 

E.g., Ms. Jones, the defendant in the civil case, denies the allegations and asserts her innocence.

The legal term "evidence" is pronounced "ev-uh-DENS" with the stress placed on the last syllable.

In legal proceedings, evidence encompasses any material or information presented to a court or tribunal to support or refute a claim or argument. This can include documents, testimony from witnesses, physical objects, audiovisual recordings, and expert opinions.  

E.g. , The prosecution presented DNA evidence linking the defendant to the crime scene.

"Jurisdiction" is pronounced as "jur-iss-DIK-shuhn" in American English. 

This word refers to the authority or power of a court, government agency, or other entity to interpret and apply the law, make judicial proceedings, and enforce laws over a particular subject matter.

E.g., This court lacks jurisdiction over the dispute, as it falls under federal law.

4. Charge /tʃɑːrdʒ/

This word is pronounced as "chahrj" in American English.

A "charge" indicates a formal accusation or allegation of wrongdoing that a law enforcement agency or prosecutor makes against a person. Being charged with a crime means that authorities believe there is sufficient evidence to support the accusation.

E.g., After reviewing the evidence, the prosecutor decided to file a charge of theft against the suspect.

In English, "liability" is pronounced as "lie-uh-BIL-uh-dee." 

Liability is the legal responsibility or obligation one party has to another party or to society as a whole. In criminal law, liability refers to being held accountable for unlawful behavior or criminal offenses.

E.g., The company accepted liability for the accident its employees caused due to negligence on their part.

To pronounce the word "injunction," we place the emphasis on the second syllable, as in "in-JUNK-shuhn."

An injunction is a legal order a court issues in a civil lawsuit that requires a person or entity to do or refrain from doing a specific action. 

E.g., T he company sought an injunction to prevent its former employee from disclosing trade secrets .

The ideal pronunciation for the word "damages" is "DAM-ij-iz."

In legal English for lawyers, this term refers to the monetary compensation awarded to a party as a remedy for a wrong caused by another party's actions.

E.g., The court awarded substantial damages to the injured party after pleadings of pain and suffering.

Pronounced as "PRES-uh-dent," this word connotes a previous court decision that serves as an authoritative guide for future cases with similar legal issues. 

E.g., Drawing from precedent , the judge in the superior court rendered a verdict.

Appeal is one of the common words used in law, both within and outside the courtroom. It is often pronounced as "uh-PEEL."

The term "appeal" refers to the process by which a party seeks review of a lower court's decision by a higher court.

E.g., I have plans to appeal the verdict on the grounds of insufficient evidence linking me to the wrongful death accusations.

Habeas Corpus or "HEY-bee-uhs KAWR-puhs" is quite a mouthful to pronounce. However, the legal terminology simply refers to protecting individuals from unlawful detention or imprisonment.

E.g., The defense attorney filed a writ of habeas corpus to challenge her client's detention without trial.

An appellate court is a type of court that hears appeals from lower courts or tribunals. Its primary function is to review decisions made by lower courts or administrative agencies to determine if legal errors were made or if the decision was otherwise improper.

E.g., The defendant's attorney filed an appeal with the state appellate court, arguing that the trial judge had made errors in admitting certain evidence.

Pronounced “ar-bi-TRAY-shuhn” with the stress on the third syllable, this word means the process of resolving disputes outside of court, with a neutral third party making a binding decision.

E.g., The parties agreed to arbitration to settle their contractual disagreements efficiently.

A deposition is the act of taking sworn out-of-court testimony from a witness or party to a lawsuit. During a deposition, individuals involved in a legal case, including plaintiffs, defendants, and witnesses, are questioned under oath by attorneys. 

In the word "deposition," the stress is placed on the third syllable, resulting in "dep-uh-ZISH-uhn."

E.g., The attorney of the district court questioned the witness during a deposition to gather evidence for trial.

An "alibi" is a claim or piece of evidence that shows a person was somewhere other than the scene of a crime at the time it was committed. The correct pronunciation for this word  is "AL-uh-bye." 

E.g., His defendant presented multiple witnesses to support his alibi for the night of the robbery during his criminal trial.

"Probate" refers to the legal process of administering the estate of a deceased person. This is essentially the legal procedure by which a deceased person's assets are distributed and their affairs are settled under the supervision of a court.

E.g., An executor whom the court appointed took charge of overseeing the probate of the deceased's will.

The word "testimony" is one of the common words used in law and it is often pronounced as "TES-tuh-moh-nee."

Testimony connotes statements or evidence given by a witness under oath in a court of law. Witnesses provide testimony about their observations, experiences, or knowledge relevant to criminal cases. Testimony may be given orally during a trial or deposition, or it can be provided in written form.

E.g., The witness' compelling testimony swayed the jury in favor of the plaintiff.

"Felony" is simply pronounced as "FELL-uh-nee" with the emphasis often on the first syllable.

This legal terminology refers to a serious crime that involves violence or is considered a grave offense against the law. Felonies are generally distinguished from misdemeanors, which are less serious offenses.

E.g., The high court c harged the suspect with committing a felony after being found in possession of the illegal firearms used in stealing the motor vehicle at gunpoint.

In legal English, "misdemeanor" is a lesser criminal offense than a felony, often punishable by a fine, probation, community service, or a short jail sentence.

This word is pronounced "miss-duh-MEEN-er." 

E.g., The defendant pled guilty to misdemeanor trespassing.

"Admissible" in American English commonly sounds like "ad-MISS-uh-bull."

This word is a Latin term that means evidence or testimony is permitted to be presented or considered in court proceedings because it meets certain criteria of relevance, reliability, and legality. 

E.g. Due to its authenticity, the judge ruled the document admissible .

Pronounced "kayss," a case is a dispute or controversy that is brought before a court for resolution. It can also refer to specific legal proceedings, including all related documents, evidence, and decisions associated with a dispute. 

E.g., The judge presiding over the criminal case listened carefully to the arguments presented by both sides

Discovery is one of the common words used in law as well as in everyday communication. This word is pronounced "dih-SKUHV-uh-ree." 

For legal purposes, “discovery” refers to the pre-trial phase in a lawsuit where each party can obtain evidence and information from the opposing party or parties.

E.g., In her quest for evidence, the attorney left no stone unturned during the discovery process.

"Litigation" is pronounced as "lih-tuh-GAY-shuhn." It typically refers to the process of taking legal action through the court system to resolve a dispute between parties.

E.g., The deal between both brothers was a litigation to resolve their contractual dispute.

An impeachment pronounced “im-PEECH-ment,” is a formal process in which an official, such as a government official or the president, is accused of wrongdoing or misconduct.

E.g., The House of Representatives initiated impeachment proceedings against the president.

In American English, "acquittal" is voiced as "uh-KWIT-uhl." The emphasis is on the second syllable, and the "a" in the first syllable is pronounced as a schwa sound , similar to the "u" in "up."

An acquittal is a verdict wherein a person accused of a crime is not guilty. This means they are cleared of the charges against them and are found not guilty by a court of law.

E.g., They both celebrated their acquittal after the jury found them innocent of murder.

Pronounced as "bayl," the word bail refers to the release of a person from custody pending a trial or other legal proceedings.

E.g.,  The judge set bail at $10,000 for the defendant's release from custody.

To correctly voice "juror,"  the "jur" syllable should rhyme with "fur."

A "juror" is a member of a jury, which is a group of individuals selected to hear and decide on the verdict in a legal case in a court of law. 

E.g., Weighing the evidence presented in the court case, the juror arrived at a conclusion.

A petition is a formal legal document that a group of people or an individual addresses to an official entity. The correct pronunciation for this word is "puh-TISH-uhn."

E.g., Bear in mind that the plaintiff has filed a petition for divorce with the family court.

Pronounced "WIHT-nis," this is someone who has observed an event firsthand and can provide testimony about what they saw in a criminal case.

E.g., The witness took the stand to provide crucial testimony regarding the events leading up to the accident.

An arrest occurs when law enforcement officers take a person into custody.

In American English, "arrest" is correctly pronounced "uh-REST." The emphasis is placed on the second syllable, and the "ar" sounds like "u" in "butter."

E.g., The police made an arrest despite initially tendering a search warrant with no probable cause.

The word "subpoena" is pronounced  as suh-PEE-nuh. 

This is a formal document containing a court order compelling an individual to appear as a witness or produce evidence for a legal proceeding.

E.g., While testifying under subpoena at the Supreme Court , the witness recounted her version of events.

Mastering legal English for foreigners may require a bit of time. However, the overarching strategies for attaining mastery are engrossing yourself in legal materials and practicing consistently.

Here are a few vital methods to keep in mind if you're dedicated to improving your legal vocabulary in English:

Read Legal Materials

Immerse yourself in legal texts like court opinions, contracts, and legal books. Also, pay attention to the vocabulary used in these materials and take note of unfamiliar terms.

A good material to practice common words used in law is American Legal English by Lee, Hall, and Barone. Reading legal documents regularly will expose you to a wide range of terminology in context. 

Use Legal Dictionaries and Glossaries

Keep a legal dictionary or access online legal glossaries to look up unfamiliar terms in the legal field. Make it a habit to consult these resources whenever you encounter a new word or phrase.

Remember to be particular about definitions, pronunciations, and example sentences to understand how the terms are used in practice.

Practice with BoldVoice

Take advantage of the BoldVoice app to learn legal English, practice, and refine your overall accent. BoldVoice is an accent training platform that incorporates real-life human coaching with AI for efficient learning. 

By providing feedback, exercises, assessments, and video lessons, BoldVoice helps you learn faster as you master words from simple to complex sentences. Their training also covers vocabulary, grammar, writing skills, and communication techniques pertaining to the legal profession. 

English is one of the most universal languages in law, and this is why it is beneficial to practice English for legal purposes specifically. Particularly for non-native attorneys and professionals, legal English is a skill well worth developing. You’ll almost always find these common law terms in contracts, bills of sale, lease agreements for personal property, or affidavits, as the case might be. 

It is therefore vital to expand your vocabulary for fluid communication, confidence, and staying informed. This curated list of common legal terms provides a foundation for further exploration. However, for a comprehensive and tailored approach to advanced vocabulary learning, you should consider leveraging BoldVoice. 

With the BoldVoice app, you can master legal English for foreign lawyers, refine your speaking skills, and enhance your professional confidence. Download the BoldVoice app right away to get started on your free 7-day trial.

share article

Keep Reading

Download on the

Google Play

By Language

• Global directory Global directory
• Product logins Product logins
• Contact us Contact us

Our Privacy Statement & Cookie Policy

All Thomson Reuters websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.

• Privacy Statement
• Cookie Policy

Join our community

Sign up for industry-leading insights, updates, and all things AI @ Thomson Reuters.

The past, present, and future of legal research with generative AI

Legal technology has quickly evolved from a books-only exercise to outmatched AI-supported technology - with predictive analytics, precision research capabilities and powerful new citator tools.

Westlaw Precision | Harness the power of generative AI

Innovative tools deliver advanced speed and accuracy, providing you with greater confidence in your legal research

CoCounsel: The GenAI assistant for legal professionals

Bringing together generative AI, trusted content, and expert insights for a new era of work.

Build a career without boundaries

Learn more about how Thomson Reuters informs the way forward in The Power of Purpose

Related posts

Legal drafting challenges, risks and opportunities in a year of transformation

Thomson Reuters showcases CoCounsel with Microsoft Copilot during 2024 Microsoft Build

Generative AI for legal professionals: Its growing potential and top use cases

More answers.

How generative AI can enhance your legal work – without compromising ethics

Love Litigating Lawyers Day: A celebration of legal advocacy

Risk analysis: An overview

AI on Trial: Legal Models Hallucinate in 1 out of 6 Queries

A new study reveals the need for benchmarking and public evaluations of AI tools in law.

Artificial intelligence (AI) tools are rapidly transforming the practice of law. Nearly  three quarters of lawyers plan on using generative AI for their work, from sifting through mountains of case law to drafting contracts to reviewing documents to writing legal memoranda. But are these tools reliable enough for real-world use?

Large language models have a documented tendency to “hallucinate,” or make up false information. In one highly-publicized case, a New York lawyer  faced sanctions for citing ChatGPT-invented fictional cases in a legal brief;  many similar cases have since been reported. And our  previous study of general-purpose chatbots found that they hallucinated between 58% and 82% of the time on legal queries, highlighting the risks of incorporating AI into legal practice. In his  2023 annual report on the judiciary , Chief Justice Roberts took note and warned lawyers of hallucinations. 

Across all areas of industry, retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) is seen and promoted as the solution for reducing hallucinations in domain-specific contexts. Relying on RAG, leading legal research services have released AI-powered legal research products that they claim  “avoid” hallucinations and guarantee  “hallucination-free” legal citations. RAG systems promise to deliver more accurate and trustworthy legal information by integrating a language model with a database of legal documents. Yet providers have not provided hard evidence for such claims or even precisely defined “hallucination,” making it difficult to assess their real-world reliability.

AI-Driven Legal Research Tools Still Hallucinate

In a new preprint study by  Stanford RegLab and  HAI researchers, we put the claims of two providers, LexisNexis and Thomson Reuters (the parent company of Westlaw), to the test. We show that their tools do reduce errors compared to general-purpose AI models like GPT-4. That is a substantial improvement and we document instances where these tools can spot mistaken premises. But even these bespoke legal AI tools still hallucinate an alarming amount of the time: these systems produced incorrect information more than 17% of the time—one in every six queries.

Read the full study, Hallucination-Free? Assessing the Reliability of Leading AI Legal Research Tools

To conduct our study, we manually constructed a pre-registered dataset of over 200 open-ended legal queries, which we designed to probe various aspects of these systems’ performance.

Broadly, we investigated (1) general research questions (questions about doctrine, case holdings, or the bar exam); (2) jurisdiction or time-specific questions (questions about circuit splits and recent changes in the law); (3) false premise questions (questions that mimic a user having a mistaken understanding of the law); and (4) factual recall questions (questions about simple, objective facts that require no legal interpretation).

Figure 1: Comparison of hallucinated (red) and incomplete (yellow) answers across generative legal research tools.

These systems can hallucinate in one of two ways. First, a response from an AI tool might just be  incorrect —it describes the law incorrectly or makes a factual error. Second, a response might be  misgrounded —the AI tool describes the law correctly, but cites a source which does not in fact support its claims.

Given the critical importance of authoritative sources in legal research and writing, the second type of hallucination may be even more pernicious than the outright invention of legal cases. A citation might be “hallucination-free” in the narrowest sense that the citation  exists , but that is not the only thing that matters. The core promise of legal AI is that it can streamline the time-consuming process of identifying relevant legal sources. If a tool provides sources that  seem authoritative but are in reality irrelevant or contradictory, users could be misled. They may place undue trust in the tool's output, potentially leading to erroneous legal judgments and conclusions.

Figure 2:  Left: Example of a hallucinated response by Thomson Reuters’s Ask Practical Law AI. The system fails to correct the user's mistaken premise—in reality, Justice Ginsburg joined the Court's landmark decision legalizing same-sex marriage—and instead provides additional false information about the case. Right: Example of a hallucinated response by LexisNexis’s Lexis+ AI.  Casey and its undue burden standard were overruled by the Supreme Court in  Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization , 597 U.S. 215 (2022); the correct answer is rational basis review.

RAG Is Not a Panacea

Figure 3: An overview of the retrieval-augmentation generation (RAG) process. Given a user query (left), the typical process consists of two steps: (1) retrieval (middle), where the query is embedded with natural language processing and a retrieval system takes embeddings and retrieves the relevant documents (e.g., Supreme Court cases); and (2) generation (right), where the retrieved texts are fed to the language model to generate the response to the user query. Any of the subsidiary steps may introduce error and hallucinations into the generated response. (Icons are courtesy of FlatIcon.)

Under the hood, these new legal AI tools use retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) to produce their results, a method that many tout as a potential solution to the hallucination problem. In theory, RAG allows a system to first  retrieve the relevant source material and then use it to  generate the correct response. In practice, however, we show that even RAG systems are not hallucination-free. 

We identify several challenges that are particularly unique to RAG-based legal AI systems, causing hallucinations. 

First, legal retrieval is hard. As any lawyer knows, finding the appropriate (or best) authority can be no easy task. Unlike other domains, the law is not entirely composed of verifiable  facts —instead, law is built up over time by judges writing  opinions . This makes identifying the set of documents that definitively answer a query difficult, and sometimes hallucinations occur for the simple reason that the system’s retrieval mechanism fails.

Second, even when retrieval occurs, the document that is retrieved can be an inapplicable authority. In the American legal system, rules and precedents differ across jurisdictions and time periods; documents that might be relevant on their face due to semantic similarity to a query may actually be inapposite for idiosyncratic reasons that are unique to the law. Thus, we also observe hallucinations occurring when these RAG systems fail to identify the truly binding authority. This is particularly problematic as areas where the law is in flux is precisely where legal research matters the most. One system, for instance, incorrectly recited the “undue burden” standard for abortion restrictions as good law, which was overturned in  Dobbs (see Figure 2). 

Third, sycophancy—the tendency of AI to agree with the user's incorrect assumptions—also poses unique risks in legal settings. One system, for instance, naively agreed with the question’s premise that Justice Ginsburg dissented in  Obergefell , the case establishing a right to same-sex marriage, and answered that she did so based on her views on international copyright. (Justice Ginsburg did not dissent in  Obergefell and, no, the case had nothing to do with copyright.) Notwithstanding that answer, here there are optimistic results. Our tests showed that both systems generally navigated queries based on false premises effectively. But when these systems do agree with erroneous user assertions, the implications can be severe—particularly for those hoping to use these tools to increase access to justice among  pro se and under-resourced litigants.

Responsible Integration of AI Into Law Requires Transparency

Ultimately, our results highlight the need for rigorous and transparent benchmarking of legal AI tools. Unlike other domains, the use of AI in law remains alarmingly opaque: the tools we study provide no systematic access, publish few details about their models, and report no evaluation results at all.

This opacity makes it exceedingly challenging for lawyers to procure and acquire AI products. The big law firm  Paul Weiss spent nearly a year and a half testing a product, and did not develop “hard metrics” because checking the AI system was so involved that it “makes any efficiency gains difficult to measure.” The absence of rigorous evaluation metrics makes responsible adoption difficult, especially for practitioners that are less resourced than Paul Weiss. 

The lack of transparency also threatens lawyers’ ability to comply with ethical and professional responsibility requirements. The bar associations of  California ,  New York , and  Florida have all recently released guidance on lawyers’ duty of supervision over work products created with AI tools. And as of May 2024,  more than 25 federal judges have issued standing orders instructing attorneys to disclose or monitor the use of AI in their courtrooms.

Without access to evaluations of the specific tools and transparency around their design, lawyers may find it impossible to comply with these responsibilities. Alternatively, given the high rate of hallucinations, lawyers may find themselves having to verify each and every proposition and citation provided by these tools, undercutting the stated efficiency gains that legal AI tools are supposed to provide.

Our study is meant in no way to single out LexisNexis and Thomson Reuters. Their products are far from the only legal AI tools that stand in need of transparency—a slew of startups offer similar products and have  made   similar   claims , but they are available on even more restricted bases, making it even more difficult to assess how they function. 

Based on what we know, legal hallucinations have not been solved and the legal profession should turn to public benchmarking and rigorous evaluations of AI tools. 

The authors of this study chose to evaluate “Ask Practical Law AI” because, despite several requests, they were not given access to Thomson Reuters’ other products at the time of the study. The authors look forward to evaluating more tools, but underscore that it should not be incumbent on academic researchers alone to provide transparency and empirical evidence on the reliability of marketed products. 

Paper authors: Varun Magesh is a research fellow at Stanford RegLab. Faiz Surani is a research fellow at Stanford RegLab. Matthew Dahl is a joint JD/PhD student in political science at Yale University and graduate student affiliate of Stanford RegLab. Mirac Suzgun is a joint JD/PhD student in computer science at Stanford University and a graduate student fellow at Stanford RegLab. Christopher D. Manning is Thomas M. Siebel Professor of Machine Learning, Professor of Linguistics and Computer Science, and Senior Fellow at HAI. Daniel E. Ho is the William Benjamin Scott and Luna M. Scott Professor of Law, Professor of Political Science, Professor of Computer Science (by courtesy), Senior Fellow at HAI, Senior Fellow at SIEPR, and Director of the RegLab at Stanford University. 

More News Topics

Take the Quiz: Find the Best State for You »

What's the best state for you ».

Pope Used Vulgar Italian Word to Refer to LGBT People, Italian Newspapers Report

FILE PHOTO: Pope Francis attends the weekly general audience, in Saint Peter Square at the Vatican, May 22, 2024. REUTERS/Guglielmo Mangiapane/File Photo

VATICAN CITY (Reuters) - Pope Francis used a highly derogatory term towards the LGBT community as he reiterated in a closed-door meeting with Italian bishops that gay people should not be allowed to become priests, Italian media reported on Monday.

La Repubblica and Corriere della Sera, Italy's largest circulation dailies, both quoted the pope as saying seminaries, or priesthood colleges, are already too full of "frociaggine", a vulgar Italian term roughly translating as "faggotness".

The Vatican did not respond to a request for comment.

La Repubblica attributed its story to several unspecified sources, while Corriere said it was backed up by a few, unnamed bishops, who suggested the pope, as an Argentine, might have not realised that the Italian term he used was offensive.

Political gossip website Dagospia was the first to report on the alleged incident, said to have happened on May 20, when the Italian Bishops Conference opened a four-day assembly with a non-public meeting with the pontiff.

Francis, who is 87, has so far been credited with leading the Roman Catholic Church into taking a more welcoming approach towards the LGBT community.

In 2013, at the start of his papacy, he famously said, "If a person is gay and seeks God and has good will, who am I to judge?", while last year he allowed priests to bless members of same-sex couples, triggering substantial conservative backlash.

Nevertheless, he delivered a similar message on gay seminarians - minus the reported swear word - when he met Italian bishops in 2018, telling them to carefully vet priesthood applicants and reject any suspected homosexuals.

In a 2005 document, released under Francis's late predecessor Benedict XVI, the Vatican said the Church could admit into the priesthood those who had clearly overcome homosexual tendencies for at least three years.

The document said practicing homosexuals and those with "deep-seated" gay tendencies and those who "support the so-called gay culture" should be barred.

(This story has been refiled to correct a typographical error in paragraph 2)

(Reporting by Alvise Armellini; editing by Jonathan Oatis)

Copyright 2024 Thomson Reuters .

Photos You Should See - May 2024

Join the Conversation

Tags: Christianity , Italy , Europe

America 2024

Health News Bulletin

Stay informed on the latest news on health and COVID-19 from the editors at U.S. News & World Report.

Sign in to manage your newsletters »

Sign up to receive the latest updates from U.S News & World Report and our trusted partners and sponsors. By clicking submit, you are agreeing to our Terms and Conditions & Privacy Policy .

You May Also Like

The 10 worst presidents.

U.S. News Staff Feb. 23, 2024

Cartoons on President Donald Trump

Feb. 1, 2017, at 1:24 p.m.

Photos: Obama Behind the Scenes

April 8, 2022

Photos: Who Supports Joe Biden?

March 11, 2020

Jurors Face 'Weight' of Trump Decision

Lauren Camera May 28, 2024

‘No Policy Changes’ After Rafah Strike

Cecelia Smith-Schoenwalder May 28, 2024

Deadly Storms, Tornadoes Hit U.S.

Laura Mannweiler May 28, 2024

The Week in Cartoons May 27-31

May 28, 2024, at 2:38 p.m.

LA’s Abortion Pill Law, Explained

Consumers Cheer Up a Little

Tim Smart May 28, 2024

26 Types of Punctuation Marks & Typographical Symbols

• What Is Punctuation?
• What Is A Typographical Symbol?
• Punctuation Vs. Typographical Symbols
• Types Of Punctuation And Symbols
• Try Grammar Coach

We use words in writing. Shocking, I know! Do you know what else we use in writing? Here is a hint: they have already appeared in this paragraph. In addition to words, we use many different symbols and characters to organize our thoughts and make text easier to read. All of these symbols come in two major categories: punctuation marks and typographical symbols . These symbols have many different uses and include everything from the humble period ( . ) to the rarely used caret symbol ( ^ ). There may even be a few symbols out there that you’ve never even heard of before that leave you scratching your head when you see them on your keyboard!

What is punctuation ?

Punctuation is the act or system of using specific marks or symbols in writing to separate different elements from each other or to make writing more clear. Punctuation is used in English and the other languages that use the Latin alphabet. Many other writing systems also use punctuation, too. Thanks to punctuation, we don’t have to suffer through a block of text that looks like this:

• My favorite color is red do you like red red is great my sister likes green she always says green is the color of champions regardless of which color is better we both agree that no one likes salmon which is a fish and not a color seriously

Punctuation examples

The following sentences give examples of the many different punctuation marks that we use:

• My dog , Bark Scruffalo , was featured in a superhero movie . 
• If there ’ s something strange in your neighborhood , who are you going to call ?
• A wise man once said , “ Within the body of every person lies a skeleton .”
• Hooray ! I found everything on the map : the lake , the mountain , and the forest . 
• I told Ashley ( if that was her real name ) that I needed the copy lickety-split .

What is a typographical symbol ?

The term typographical symbol , or any other number of phrases, refers to a character or symbol that isn’t considered to be a punctuation mark but may still be used in writing for various purposes. Typographical symbols are generally avoided in formal writing under most circumstances. However, you may see typographic symbols used quite a bit in informal writing.

Typographical symbol examples

The following examples show some ways that a writer might use typographical symbols. Keep in mind that some of these sentences may not be considered appropriate in formal writing.

• The frustrated actor said she was tired of her co-star’s “annoying bull **** .”
• For questions, email us at anascabana @ bananacabanas.fake!
• The band had five # 1 singles on the American music charts during the 1990s.
• My internet provider is AT & T.

⚡️ Punctuation vs. typographical symbols

Punctuation marks are considered part of grammar and often have well-established rules for how to use them properly. For example, the rules of proper grammar state that a letter after a period should be capitalized and that a comma must be used before a coordinating conjunction.

Typographical symbols, on the other hand, may not have widely accepted rules for how, or even when, they should be used. Generally speaking, most grammar resources will only allow the use of typographical symbols under very specific circumstances and will otherwise advise a writer to avoid using them.

Types of punctuation and symbols

There are many different types of punctuation marks and typographical symbols. We’ll briefly touch on them now, but you can learn more about these characters by checking out the links in this list and also each section below:

• Question mark
• Exclamation point
• Parentheses
• Square brackets
• Curly brackets
• Angle brackets
• Quotation marks
• Bullet point
• Pound symbol
• Caret symbol
• Pipe symbol

Period, question mark, and exclamation point

These three commonly used punctuation marks are used for the same reason: to end an independent thought.

A period is used to end a declarative sentence . A period indicates that a sentence is finished.

• Today is Friday .

Unique to them, periods are also often used in abbreviations.

• Prof . Dumbledore once again awarded a ludicrous amount of points to Gryffindor.

Question mark (?)

The question mark is used to end a question, also known as an interrogative sentence .

• Do you feel lucky ?

Exclamation point (!)

The exclamation point is used at the end of exclamations and interjections .

• Our house is haunted ! 

Comma, colon, and semicolon

Commas, colons, and semicolons can all be used to connect sentences together.

The comma is often the punctuation mark that gives writers the most problems. It has many different uses and often requires good knowledge of grammar to avoid making mistakes when using it. Some common uses of the comma include:

• Joining clauses: Mario loves Peach , and she loves him . 
• Nonrestrictive elements: My favorite team , the Fighting Mongooses , won the championship this year.
• Lists: The flag was red , white , and blue.
• Coordinate adjectives: The cute , happy puppy licked my hand.

Try out this quiz on the Oxford comma!

The colon is typically used to introduce additional information.

• The detective had three suspects : the salesman, the gardener, and the lawyer.

Like commas, colons can also connect clauses together.

• We forgot to ask the most important question : who was buying lunch?

Colons have a few other uses, too.

• The meeting starts at 8:15 p.m.
• The priest started reading from Mark 3:6 .

Semicolon (;)

Like the comma and the colon, the semicolon is used to connect sentences together. The semicolon typically indicates that the second sentence is closely related to the one before it.

• I can’t eat peanuts ; I am highly allergic to them.
• Lucy loves to eat all kinds of sweets ; lollipops are her favorite.

Hyphen and dashes (en dash and em dash)

All three of these punctuation marks are often referred to as “dashes.” However, they are all used for entirely different reasons.

The hyphen is used to form compound words.

• I went to lunch with my father-in-law .
• She was playing with a jack-in-the-box .
• He was accused of having pro-British sympathies.

En dash (–)

The en dash is used to express ranges or is sometimes used in more complex compound words.

• The homework exercises are on pages 20–27 .
• The songwriter had worked on many Tony Award–winning productions.

Em dash (—)

The em dash is used to indicate a pause or interrupted speech.

• The thief was someone nobody expected —me !
• “Those kids will— ” was all he managed to say before he was hit by a water balloon.

Test your knowledge on the different dashes here.

Parentheses, brackets, and braces

These pairs of punctuation marks look similar, but they all have different uses. In general, the parentheses are much more commonly used than the others.

Parentheses ()

Typically, parentheses are used to add additional information.

• I thought (for a very long time) if I should actually give an honest answer.
• Tomorrow is Christmas (my favorite holiday) !

Parentheses have a variety of other uses, too.

• Pollution increased significantly. (See Chart 14B)
• He was at an Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) meeting.
• Richard I of England (1157–1199) had the heart of a lion.

Square brackets []

Typically, square brackets  are used to clarify or add information to quotations.

• According to an eyewitness, the chimpanzees “climbed on the roof and juggled [bananas] .”
• The judge said that “the defense attorney [Mr. Wright] had made it clear that the case was far from closed.”

Curly brackets {}

Curly brackets , also known as braces , are rarely used punctuation marks that are used to group a set.

• I was impressed by the many different colors {red, green, yellow, blue, purple, black, white} they selected for the flag’s design.

Angle brackets <>

Angle brackets have no usage in formal writing and are rarely ever used even in informal writing. These characters have more uses in other fields, such as math or computing.

Quotation marks and apostrophe

You’ll find these punctuation marks hanging out at the top of a line of text.

Quotation marks (“”)

The most common use of quotation marks is to contain quotations.

• She said, “ Don’t let the dog out of the house. ”
• Bob Ross liked to put “ happy little trees ” in many of his paintings.

Apostrophe (‘)

The apostrophe is most often used to form possessives and contractions.

• The house ’ s back door is open.
• My cousin ’ s birthday is next week.
• It isn ’ t ready yet.
• We should ’ ve stayed outside.

Slash and ellipses

These are two punctuation marks you may not see too often, but they are still useful.

The slash has several different uses. Here are some examples:

• Relationships: The existence of boxer briefs somehow hasn’t ended the boxers/briefs debate.
• Alternatives: They accept cash and/or credit.
• Fractions: After an hour, 2/3 of the audience had already left.

Ellipses (…)

In formal writing, ellipses are used to indicate that words were removed from a quote.

• The mayor said, “The damages will be … paid for by the city … as soon as possible.”

In informal writing, ellipses are often used to indicate pauses or speech that trails off.

• He nervously stammered and said, “Look, I … You see … I wasn’t … Forget it, okay.”

Make Your Writing Shine!

• By clicking "Sign Up", you are accepting Dictionary.com Terms & Conditions and Privacy policies.
• Phone This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Typographical symbols

Typographical symbols rarely appear in formal writing. You are much more likely to see them used for a variety of reasons in informal writing.

Asterisk (*)

In formal writing, especially academic and scientific writing, the asterisk is used to indicate a footnote.

• Chocolate is the preferred flavor of ice cream.* * According to survey data from the Ice Cream Data Center.

The asterisk may also be used to direct a reader toward a clarification or may be used to censor inappropriate words or phrases.

Ampersand (&)

The ampersand substitutes for the word and . Besides its use in the official names of things, the ampersand is typically avoided in formal writing.

•  The band gave a speech at the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame .

Bullet Point (•)

Bullet points are used to create lists. For example,

For this recipe you will need:

• baking powder

Pound symbol (#)

Informally, the pound symbol is typically used to mean number or is used in social media hashtags.

• The catchy pop song reached #1 on the charts.
• Ready 4 Halloween 2morrow!!! #spooky #TrickorTreat

Besides being used as an accent mark in Spanish and Portuguese words, the tilde is rarely used. Informally, a person may use it to mean “about” or “approximately.”

• We visited São Paulo during our vacation.
• I think my dog weighs ~20 pounds.

Backslash (\)

The backslash is primarily used in computer programming and coding. It might be used online and in texting to draw emoticons , but it has no other common uses in writing. Be careful not to mix it up with the similar forward slash (/), which is a punctuation mark.

At symbol (@)

The at symbol substitutes for the word at in informal writing. In formal writing, it is used when writing email addresses.

• His email address is [email protected] .

Caret symbol (^)

The caret symbol is used in proofreading, but may be used to indicate an exponent if a writer is unable to use superscript .

• Do you know what 3 ^ 4 (3 to the power of 4) is equal to?

Pipe symbol (|)

The pipe symbol is not used in writing. Instead, it has a variety of functions in the fields of math, physics, or computing.

How much do you know about verbs? Learn about them here.

Ways To Say

Synonym of the day

• Add an image
• Draft and add content
• Rewrite text
• Chat with Copilot
• Create a summary
• Copilot in Word on mobile devices
• Create a new presentation
• Add a slide or image
• Summarize your presentation
• Organize your presentation
• Use your organization's branding
• Copilot in PowerPoint for mobile devices
• Draft an Outlook email message
• Summarize an email thread
• Suggested drafts in Outlook
• Email coaching
• Get started with Copilot in Excel
• Identify insights
• Highlight, sort, and filter your data
• Generate formula columns
• Summarize your OneNote notes
• Create a to-do list and tasks
• Create project plans in OneNote

Add an image with Copilot in Word

Note:  This feature is available to customers with Copilot Pro (home) license on Web. Coming to Desktop and Copilot for Microsoft 365 (work) licenses soon.

Copilot can generate images

Imagine you’re working on a report about the Monarch butterfly, and you’d like to include a creative visualization. In Microsoft Word, simply ask Copilot to " Create an image of a Monarch butterfly in a spring scene" . Be as descriptive as you can, and Copilot will generate a brand-new image based solely on your instructions.

Copilot uses Designer's Image Creator to create AI-generated images in Word Copilot, powered by an advanced DALL-E 3 model.

Tips for prompting generated images?  

Creating an image works differently than searching for stock images.  

Designer’s Image Creator works best when you’re more descriptive, so get creative and add details like adjectives, locations, or even artistic styles such as ‘digital art’ and ‘photorealistic.’  

Here's an example of a how to create a longer, more descriptive prompt:  

Original prompt: " Create an image of a lion ."

Descriptive prompt: " Create a close-up photo of a female lion in a vast grassland with multiple shades of green and brown .”

Copilot can suggest licensed stock images

Copilot can also step in to recommend licensed stock images that come with your Microsoft 365 subscription. Maybe you are creating a document for recipes with strawberries, but it could use some images. Simply ask Copilot to " Insert a stock image of a delicious dessert with strawberries " , and let Copilot find the right stock image for your document. 

Give it a try with your own prompts and see what Copilot can come up with for you!  

Copilot Lab - start your journey 

Where can I get Microsoft Copilot?

Need more help?

Want more options.

Explore subscription benefits, browse training courses, learn how to secure your device, and more.

Microsoft 365 subscription benefits

Microsoft 365 training

Microsoft security

Accessibility center

Communities help you ask and answer questions, give feedback, and hear from experts with rich knowledge.

Ask the Microsoft Community

Microsoft Tech Community

Windows Insiders

Microsoft 365 Insiders

Was this information helpful?

Thank you for your feedback.

Highlights: Closing arguments wrap in Trump hush money trial

What to know about the hush money trial.

• Prosecutors finished delivering their closing statements in the trial shortly before 8 p.m. Former President Donald Trump's lawyers presented their arguments this morning .
• Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass, who spoke for more than four hours, argued that Trump falsified business records to cover up what was essentially an illegal campaign contribution meant to help him get elected in 2016.
• Trump is charged with 34 counts of falsifying business records in connection with a hush money payment to adult film actor Stormy Daniels to buy her silence about an alleged affair with Trump. He has pleaded not guilty to the charges.
• Court adjourned for the day at 8 p.m. and will resume at 10 a.m., when the judge will give instructions to the jury before it begins deliberations.

Judge lays out timeline for the rest of the week

Gary Grumbach

Zoë Richards

Tomorrow's trial proceedings are expected to get underway at 10 a.m., instead of the regular 9:30 a.m., with Judge Juan Merchan saying he expects jury instructions to last about an hour.

After that, the case will be in the hands of the jury.

Merchan said tomorrow's proceedings will conclude at 4:30 p.m., but he left the door open for the rest of the week, noting that if proceedings are needed on Thursday and Friday, the timing will be determined by how deliberations are progressing.

Trump makes no comments after leaving courtroom

Katherine Koretski

Trump did not make any comments as he left the Manhattan courtroom after the prosecution delivered closing arguments that went until just before 8 p.m.

Trump, who has often spoken outside the courtroom, instead raised his fist as he left.

Closing arguments are done; court to resume at 10 a.m. tomorrow

Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass has finished his closing argument, which began shortly after 2 p.m.

Judge Juan Merchan told jurors they will start tomorrow at 10 a.m.

Merchan told jurors that jury instructions will take around an hour before deliberations begin. He said the plan is to go until 4:30 p.m. for the day.

Prosecutor gets fired up during end of closing argument

Phil Helsel

Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass began accelerating and emphasizing his delivery to jurors during closing arguments with minutes to go before an 8 p.m. deadline.

Steinglass reiterated to the jurors that it is a crime to willfully create inaccurate tax forms and that Trump’s intent to defraud in this case is clear. He argued that why else would Stormy Daniels be paid in what he described as an elaborate scheme, instead of all at once.

Steinglass argued that that and other steps show Trump wanted the issue to be kept quiet until after the election.

“The name of the game was concealment,” he said.

Defense objects to prosecutor's remarks about Trump and Fifth Avenue

Jillian Frankel

Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass urged the jury to hold Trump accountable, suggesting by way of analogy that he can’t shoot someone on Fifth Avenue during rush hour and get away with it.

Trump's defense team objected to the comment, which Judge Juan Merchan sustained.

Mixed level of visible engagement among jurors at this late hour

Laura Jarrett

At least one juror appears to be visibly engaged in prosecutor Joshua Steinglass’ presentation — offering an affirming smile.

Others, however, appear considerably less focused and can be seen twisting their hair and rubbing their faces.

The jury is approaching an 11-hour day at the courthouse.

Prosecutor talks about difference between reasonable doubt and certainty

Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass told the jury that it does not need to evaluate each piece of evidence alone and in a vacuum but as part of a whole that he argues proves Trump’s guilt.

“You will see that the people have proven this case beyond a reasonable doubt,” he said.

During his remarks, the defense objected. Judge Juan Merchan sustained the objection.

“I’ll instruct them on the law and the evidence,” Merchan said.

Prosecutor launches into rapid-fire recap of Trump’s involvement in Daniels and McDougal stories

Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass is recapping all of the evidence intended to show Trump’s direct involvement in the settlements with Karen McDougal and Stormy Daniels, beginning with an August 2015 Trump Tower meeting.

A screen the prosecution displayed during closing arguments read “Mr. Trump involved every step of the way” as Steinglass went through a timeline of events.

Joshua Steinglass passes 4-hour mark in his closing arguments

Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass has passed the four-hour mark since he began giving the prosecution’s closing argument in Trump’s trial.

Steinglass began giving the prosecution’s closing arguments at around 2:07 p.m., but there have been several breaks since then.

Today's trial proceedings to continue until 8 p.m., judge says

After he returned to the bench, Judge Juan Merchan indicated to the attorneys that the court will push forward until 8 p.m. but will need to wrap up after that.

That would make an 11-hour day for the jury.

Last recess of the day

Judge Juan Merchan announced at 6:52 p.m. what he said will be the last recess of the day.

It's expected to last just a few minutes.

Merchan earlier said that the plan was to go until at least 7 p.m. and “finish this out if we can.”

'A bold-faced lie': Prosecutor revisits Robert Costello's testimony

Given the hour, it was initially unclear why prosecutor Joshua Steinglass began revisiting the testimony of Robert Costello , a Trump ally and lawyer who has clashed with Michael Cohen.

But the prosecution's display of an email exchange between Costello and Cohen hinted that the DA's office aims to portray Trump’s attitude toward Cohen changing only after his former attorney's compliance was in doubt, not because of anything else Cohen did.

Recounting Costello's testimony, Steinglass argued that Costello's assertion that he was acting in Cohen’s best interest and that he didn’t care at all about the defendant’s interest "was a bold-faced lie.”

‘You guys good to go a little bit longer?’ prosecutor asks, as 7 p.m. draws near

Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass asked jurors, “You guys good to go a little bit longer?” and said “Alright!” after a bench meeting to discuss scheduling at around 6:30 p.m.

Judge Juan Merchan earlier today said the plan was to go until at least 7 p.m. and “finish this out if we can.”

Prosecutor refers to 'devastating' testimony by Hope Hicks

Given the largely chronological order of the prosecution's closing arguments, prosecutor Joshua Steinglass could be nearing the end of his remarks.

He discussed what he called Hope Hicks’ “devastating” testimony earlier in the trial, adding that she burst into tears because she realized the impact of what she had told the court.

Defense attorney Todd Blanche objected to that characterization, but Judge Juan Merchan allowed it.

Prosecutor argues Trump wanted to be 'involved in everything'

Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass mocked former Trump aide Madeleine Westerhout’s testimony in which she said Trump was often so busy that sometimes he absent-mindedly signed presidential proclamations.

Steinglass, who dismissed Westerhout's remarks as a narrative Trump’s team encouraged, said that overall she gave the opposite impression — that the former president remained very attentive to outlays of his personal expenses, and that his most frequent contacts included his former attorney Michael Cohen and a former top executive of his company, Allen Weisselberg. Westerhout's testimony also conveyed that Trump continued to be the sole signatory on his own accounts, even though he easily could have added other signatories, Steinglass argued.

Trump wanted to maintain control — and “he insists on signing his own checks," Steinglass said, adding that Trump boasted about his frugality and micromanagement in his books, which Steinglass read excerpts from.

Steinglass also rejected the defense's argument that Trump was too busy to be involved in certain financial transactions.

“He’s in charge of a company for 40 years. The defendant’s entire business philosophy was to be involved in everything,” Steinglass said.

Prosecutor: Cohen's time being cross-examined exceeded his legal work for Trump in 2017

Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass said that Michael Cohen did very few hours of legal work for Trump on 2017, and that “these payments had nothing to do with the retainer agreement and nothing to do with services rendered in 2017.”

“Cohen spent more time being cross-examined in this trial than he did doing legal work for Donald Trump in 2017,” Steinglass said. He also told the jury that none of the Trump invoices went through the Trump Organization’s legal department because they weren’t for legal services rendered.

Steinglass also commented on how Cohen was paid pretty well, and had the title of personal attorney for the president.

“He was making way more money than any government job would ever pay, and don’t I know that,” Steinglass joked.

Some jurors cracked smiles and small laughs when Steinglass joked about government salaries compared to what Cohen was making.

Prosecutor says ‘these documents are so damning that you almost have to laugh’ at defense's argument

Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass told the jury that “these documents are so damning that you almost have to laugh” at an argument presented by Trump’s defense.

Steinglass was referring to a comments by defense attorney Todd Blanche that the records were not false because, if they were false, they would have been destroyed.

Steinglass also argued that the 1099s forms on which Trump reported payments to Michael Cohen of $105,000 and $315,000 were another “unlawful means” through which the conspiracy was acted upon.

EXCLUSIVE: Elise Stefanik requests probe into Merchan's selection as judge

Rep. Elise Stefanik, R-N.Y., issued a complaint letter today to the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct and an inspector general for the New York State Unified Court System, requesting an investigation into Judge Juan Merchan’s selection to preside over Trump’s hush money case.

Stefanik pointed to Merchan’s role as presiding judge for a pair of other cases related to Trump and his allies, saying, “The probability of three specific criminal cases being assigned to the same justice is infinitesimally small.”

“One cannot help but suspect that the ‘random selection’ at work in the assignment of Acting Justice Merchan, a Democrat Party donor, to these cases involving prominent Republicans, is in fact not random at all,” Stefanik wrote. “The simple answer to why Acting Justice Merchan has been assigned to these cases would seem to be that whoever made the assignment intentionally selected Acting Justice Merchan to handle them to increase the chance that Donald Trump, the Trump Organization, and Steven Bannon would ultimately be convicted.”

The letter marks a continued effort by Trump allies to attack people involved with the case by filing complaints. The board overseeing the judges has made clear that Merchan didn’t need to recuse himself over issues that some of his critics have called a conflict of interest.

Trump posts on Truth Social during break in courtroom action

Vaughn Hillyard

During the court's roughly 20-minute break, Trump on his Truth Social platform disparaged the proceedings as "boring" and a " filibuster ."

Trump's Truth Social account has been active today with posts referring to his criminal trial and the closing arguments, which have continued as the prosecution continues its argument into this evening.

Judge says closing arguments to continue into the evening

Adam Edelman

Judge Juan Merchan announced a short courtroom break and said the plan is to go until at least 7 p.m. and "finish this out if we can."

“I was watching the jurors, they look pretty alert to me. I don’t think we’re losing anyone. So I think right now we’re going to try to finish this out if we can," he told the attorneys.

“Let’s see what we can do," Merchan continued, adding that they will revisit the timeline at 7 p.m.

Prosecutor argues Trump didn't sign confidentiality agreement for a reason

Kyla Guilfoil

Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass tried to turn one of defense attorney Todd Blanche’s better arguments on its head.

Steinglass said that Trump didn’t sign the agreement because that was the point: The agreement was no less enforceable without his signature.

The timing of the payment on Oct. 27, 2016, Steinglass argued, further showed that Trump's primary concern was not his family but the election.

Prosecutor seems to say for first time there were 2 calls between Cohen and Weisselberg in late October 2016

Rebecca Shabad is in Washington, D.C.

Joshua Steinglass mentioned that in the phone records they have, prosecutors saw six calls between Michael Cohen and Allen Weisselberg over three years, two of which were in late October 2016, right before the Stormy Daniels deal was reached.

This appears to be the first time the calls have been mentioned in the case.

Steinglass also emphasized that Trump and Cohen spoke twice on the morning of Oct. 26, 2016, right before Cohen went to First Republic to submit paperwork to open his new account and to send the wire transfer to Keith Davidson on Daniels’ behalf.

Prosecutor walks through Michael Cohen's bank papers

Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass is now going through the false claims and omissions in former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen’s paperwork to First Republic to open an account in the name of his new LLC.

Those forms could serve as the “unlawful means” through which the alleged conspiracy to promote Trump’s election was acted on.

Prosecutor: Stormy Daniels' testimony shows Trump was 'not just words'

Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass is going at Trump now, referring to Story Daniels' testimony to argue that Trump is "not just words."

"Stormy Daniels was a walking, talking reminder that Trump was not just words" at a time when Trump was trying to distinguish between his words and the actions of both Clintons, Steinglass said.

He also noted that Daniels' story got little to no traction until the day after the "Access Hollywood" tape became national news, with phone traffic exploding among Keith Davidson, Dylan Howard, Michael Cohen and Trump.

Prosecutor describes ramifications of the 'Access Hollywood' tape

After a brief break, prosecutor Joshua Steinglass resumed his closing argument by describing the "Access Hollywood" tape, which multiple witnesses during the trial described as catastrophic for Trump's 2016 campaign.

Steinglass said the tape eclipsed coverage of a Category 4 hurricane, according to Hope Hicks; debate prep at Trump Tower was disrupted as campaign leadership discussed how to respond; and elected Republicans raced to disavow Trump's comments on the tape, with some withdrawing their endorsements.

Trump aide Madeleine Westerhout testified that senior Republican National Committee officials were even discussing dropping Trump from the 2016 ticket, Steinglass said.

“The video was vulgar, to say the least," he added.

Prosecution's closing arguments are one-third of the way done

Asked by Judge Juan Merchan "how much longer" the prosecution's closing arguments would take, Joshua Steinglass replied that there was still a lot to get through.

"We’re about a third of the way through," he said.

The prosecution's closing arguments began today shortly before 2:15 p.m.

Prosecutor says Cohen-Trump call shows effort to influence 2016 election

Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass told the jurors that it's their decision what the tape between Michael Cohen and Trump from Sept. 6, 2016, said.

Steinglass said it showed Trump suggested paying in cash — whether it means no financing, lump sum, it doesn’t matter, he said. Steinglass said they were trying to take steps that would not get noticed.

“This tape unequivocally shows a presidential candidate actively engaging in a scheme to influence the election," Steinglass said.

Prosecutor defends Michael Cohen's phone records

Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass is making arguments to defend Michael Cohen's phone records after the defense questioned their integrity.

Steinglass said that Cohen had no idea the Manhattan district attorney's office would ask for phone records again in January of last year, and there would be no conceivable reason for him to delete evidence of a crime he’d already been convicted and served time for.

Prosecution using graphics to illustrate points during closing arguments

The graphics that the Manhattan district attorney's team is using during their summation are high-tech and modern.

In presenting them, prosecutors are isolating certain calls and using zoom functions to highlight them. The graphics offer a clean and accessible way for the attorneys to illustrate their points to the jury.

Prosecutor: Call between David Pecker and Trump makes it 'impossible' to claim Cohen acted independently

Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass discussed a call between David Pecker and Trump in which Pecker apprised him that Michael Cohen had told Trump about Karen McDougal coming forward.

"This call makes it impossible for the defense to claim that Cohen was acting on his own here," Steinglass said.

He said the transaction was an unlawful corporate contribution to the Trump campaign — and not only did Trump know about it, Steinglass said, but he participated as well.

Prosecutor details Karen McDougal catch-and-kill scheme

Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass is going through the Karen McDougal catch-and-kill scheme in minute detail — call by call, text by text and day by day.

Virtually no testimony is needed to illustrate the negotiations — and to the extent that testimony is used, it’s not from key witness and former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen. It's from David Pecker, former publisher of the National Enquirer.

Analysis: Steinglass pokes hole in defense's argument around National Enquirer

Steinglass makes a very good point about the Dino Sajuddin story and corresponding payment.

Sajuddin is the former Trump Tower doorman who claims Trump fathered a child out of wedlock, a claim the former president has denied.

Given that everyone believed Sajuddin's claim to be false, purchasing the story was not something David Pecker did because of his fiduciary duty to shareholders; there was no reason to do it other than to benefit the 2016 Trump campaign.

Steinglass calls 2015 meeting at Trump Tower a 'subversion of democracy'

Steinglass characterized a meeting at Trump Tower almost a decade ago as a “subversion of democracy.”

He said the entire purpose of the August 2015 meeting was to “pull the wool over [voters’] eyes” before they made their decisions.

He also pointed out that while NDAs are not unlawful, nor are contracts illegal, a contract to kill your wife is illegal, and therefore an NDA designed to prevent certain information from becoming public during a political campaign is also illegal.

Steinglass tells jurors to think of Cohen as a 'tour guide'

Daniel Arkin

Trump's lawyers repeatedly attempted to make Cohen's trustworthiness and motives a focal point of the trial — a strategy that Steinglass flat-out rejected in his summations. "This case is not about Michael Cohen," Steinglass told the jury. "This case is about Donald Trump."

Steinglass encouraged the jury to instead think of Cohen as a "tour guide" through the evidence introduced during the proceedings, including what the state has presented as falsified business records aimed at covering up an election law violation. Cohen, according to Steinglass, "provides context and color to the documents" — but he is not the trial's main character.

Steinglass begins touching on campaign finance violations

Steinglass is teasing the crux of the prosecution’s argument, saying, “Once money starts changing hands on behalf of the campaign, that’s election law — that’s federal election campaign finance violation.”

“We’ll get back to that,” he adds.

Prosecution argues there is a 'mountain of evidence' against Trump

Steinglass is fighting back against the defense's rhetoric that the only evidence in this case came from Michael Cohen's testimony.

The prosecutor told the jury that Judge Merchan will say Cohen is an accomplice because he participated in these crimes, but you cannot convict Trump on Cohen’s word alone — unless there is corroborating evidence.

Steinglass said that there is a mountain of evidence in the case, saying "it’s difficult to conceive of a case with more corroboration than this one.”

Steinglass looks to counter questions on details of Cohen's stories

Steinglass is now using an imaginary conversation to explain Cohen’s retelling of some of the stories or dates he’d recounted to the jury that Trump’s lawyers had questioned.

“These guys know each other well, they speak in code. A better explanation is that Cohen could have gotten the time and place of the call wrong. This is one date in many, he spoke to the defendant 20 times in the month of October,” Steinglass said.

“Let’s say you had dinner at a restaurant with an old friend and the friend says they were getting married. Later you find a receipt and think that was the night they told you they were getting married, but found out the friend was actually in California on that night. That does not mean that you are lying about the fact that you had dinner with the friend or about the fact that your friend told you they were getting married,” Steinglass said.

Steinglass: We didn't pick Cohen at the 'witness store'

Steinglass is forcefully pushing back on the Trump team's attempts to tarnish Cohen's character and motives, reminding the jury that the ex-fixer was once a valued member of the former president's inner circle: "We didn't choose Michael Cohen. We didn't pick him up at the witness store. Mr. Trump chose Mr. Cohen for the same qualities his attorneys now urge you to reject."

Cohen's top quality was loyalty to his former boss, Steinglass said. Cohen was "drawn to the defendant like a moth to a flame, and he wasn't the only one. David Pecker saw Mr. Trump as a mentor; Mr. Trump saw David Pecker as a useful tool."

On Trump attacks on Cohen: 'That is what some people might call chutzpah'

Steinglass is explaining that Cohen had lied at Trump’s direction and that Trump was now using those lies to harm Cohen’s credibility in the trial.

“The defense also tells you you should reject his testimony because he lied and took pleas in federal court. He has had some trouble accepting responsibility,” Steinglass said. “For bank fraud conviction and his tax law violation, he said he admitted to you that he did the things. He pleaded guilty.”

“He feels like he was treated unfairly and as a first offender he should have been able to pay a fine and back taxes and he believes the Trump Justice Department did him dirty. Whether that is true or not, he accepted responsibility and went to prison for it,” Steinglass added.

“You should consider all of this for his credibility” he continued. “The lies he told to Congress had to do with the Mueller investigation and the Russia probe, and what he lied about was the number of dealings the defendant had with Russia, and the only benefit was he stayed in the defendant’s good graces.”

“Those lies that he told are being used by the same defendant to undermine his credibility,” Steinglass said. 

“That is what some people might call chutzpah,” he added, using a Yiddish word meaning audacity.

Prosecution is careful to repeatedly call Trump 'the defendent'

There’s subtle but notable rhetorical move happening in this closing by the prosecution.

Steinglass is repeatedly referring to Trump as “the defendant” instead of “Mr. Trump” or “the former president.” This contrasts greatly from the defense's language, as Trump's lawyers almost always refer to him as "the president."

It will be important to watch for Steinglass to argue at some point that no one is above the law, even the former president of the United States -- something we’ve seen other state and federal prosecutors say about Trump over the last year.

Steinglass focuses on inconsistencies in defense argument

Steinglass zeroed in on an example of what the prosecution considers an inconsistency in the defense team's case. He told the jury that if the $420,000 payment for Cohen was for legal services, as the defense argued, Cohen could not have stolen $60,000 from the Trump Organization, as the defense also argued. It's either one or the other, the prosecutor argues — not both.

Steinglass: 'I'm not asking you to feel bad for Michael Cohen'

Steinglass is trying to reason with the jury, telling the jurors that they don't need to feel bad for Cohen, but they should understand where Cohen is coming from.

“I am not asking you to feel bad for Michael Cohen. He made his bed," Steinglass said.

“But you can hardly blame him that he’s making money for the one thing he has left," he added, referencing Cohen's knowledge of the inner workings of the Trump organization.

Steinglass admits that Daniels’ testimony was “messy” — but 'Stormy Daniels is the motive'

Steinglass is laying out how “the defense has gone to great lengths to shame Stormy Daniels, saying that she changed her story” but adds that “her false denials have been thoroughly discussed and explained.”

“She lived 2017 in pure silence, Michael Cohen came out and said sex never happened” and Daniels “felt compelled to set the record straight,” he said.

Steinglass said that “parts of her testimony” were “cringeworthy” and “uncomfortable.”

But details like “what the suite” at Harrah’s “looked like” and how the toiletry bag appeared “ring true.”

“They’re the kind of details you’d expect someone to remember,” Steinglass explained, adding that, “fortunately, she was not asked or did she volunteer specific details of the sexual act itself.”

“It certainly is true you don’t have to prove that sex took place — that is not an element of the crime, the defendant knew what happened and reinforces the incentive to buy her silence,” explained Steinglass.

“Her story is messy,” he said. “But that’s kind of the point. That’s the display the defendant didn’t want the American voter to see.”

“If her testimony were so irrelevant, why did they work so hard to discredit her?” he added. “In the simplest terms, Stormy Daniels is the motive.”

Steinglass undercuts defense argument that Trump was totally in the dark on Daniels payment

Steinglass displayed quotes from one of the state's exhibits: a phone call in which Cohen — well before he started cooperating with prosecutors — tells Davidson that Trump hates the fact that his team settled with Daniels.

The quotes undercut the defense team's insistence that Trump knew nothing about the hush money payments to Daniels.

Steinglass to jury: You don't need to believe Cohen to find there was a conspiracy

Steinglass defended the state's witnesses against the Trump team's accusations of lying, but he added that the jury does not necessarily need to believe every word of Cohen's testimony to find that there was a conspiracy to unlawfully influence the 2016 election.

"You don’t need Michael Cohen to prove that one bit," Steinglass said, referring to the state's accusation of a conspiracy.

He added that Hope Hicks, Rhona Graff, Madeleine Westerhout, Jeffrey McConney and Deborah Tarasoff were all witnesses who like Trump but confirmed Cohen's testimony.

Steinglass: 'You don't get to commit election fraud or falsify your business records'

Steinglass is appealing to the jury by explaining to them that it doesn't really matter why Trump broke the law, as long as they feel he did break the law. The argument appears to be a response to the claim by Blanche, during his own closing arguments, that Stormy Daniels had attempted to extort Trump.

"In the end it doesn’t really matter, because you don't get to commit election fraud or falsify your business records because you think you’ve been victimized," he said.

"In other words, extortion is not a defense for falsifying business records," he added.

"You've got to use your common sense, here," Steinglass continued. "Consider the utterly damning testimony of David Pecker."

Steinglass rebuts defense arguments about phone records

"The defense seems to be questioning our integrity,” Steinglass told the jury near the top of his summation.

But, he argued, it was the defense that didn't properly depict phone records.

The call summaries were made to help guide you, the prosecutor explained to the jury. The phone records are all in evidence and you can look through them at your leisure, he added.

It’s also an interesting accusation, Steinglass points out, given that the defense’s summary of calls between Cohen and Costello double-counts their calls. He also reminds them that not every phone call is accounted for in their phone records. Cohen had 11 phone numbers for Trump; they had records corresponding to two of them.

Prosecution kicks off closing arguments

The prosecution is now kicking off its closing arguments. Joshua Steinglass will give them.

Merchan told jury to disregard Blanche's 'prison' comment

Merchan, who chastised Blanche for imploring jurors not to send Trump to prison, told the jury that the lawyer's comment was "improper, and you must disregard it."

"If there is a verdict of guilty," the judge added, "it will be up to me to impose a sentence."

He went on to explain that a "prison sentence is not required in the event of a guilty verdict."

We are back

Merchan is at the bench. Trump is seated at the defense table.

Trump's family shows support outside the courthouse

Trump's sons Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump along with Eric's wife, Lara Trump, the co-chair of the Republican National Committee, slammed the proceedings in remarks to reporters outside the courthouse during the lunch break.

"Michael Cohen is the embodiment of reasonable doubt," Donald Jr. said. "This entire case hinges on someone who has quite literally lied to every single person and body he's ever been in front of in his life before."

Both he and Eric Trump echoed their father's often repeated characterization of the trial, calling it a "political witch hunt" and a "sham."

Eric went on to say that the district attorney's office is ignoring crimes across the city and using the trial to attack Trump.

"They're sitting there, they're laughing, they're giggling," Eric said. "This was their moment. This is how they embarrass Donald Trump."

Laura Trump added that the trial has been "banana republic-type stuff."

"This is a case about politics, pure and simple," she said.  

After walking away from the news conference, Donald Trump Jr. added that Democrats "talk about democracy but are laughing about it like it's a soundbite," and claimed they are “trying to scare anyone who has any kind of belief that doesn’t go 100% with what they believe.”

Merchan says he will give curative instructions after Blanche's 'prison' comment

Merchan appeared to chastise Blanche after the defense lawyer implored jurors not to send Trump to prison — an unlikely outcome in this case

"I think that statement was outrageous, Mr. Blanche," Merchan said after jurors were excused for their daily lunch break, later adding: "It's simply not allowed. Period. It’s hard for me to imagine how that was accidental in any way."

Merchan told the court that he plans to give jurors a curative instruction — in other words, general direction that is aimed at clearing up an erroneous statement.

Prosecutor slams Blanche's 'prison' comment

Joshua Steinglass, the prosecutor who is expected to deliver the state's closing arguments, blasted Blanche's comment to the jury about prison time as a "blatant and wholly inappropriate move" by the defense.

Steinglass asked Merchan to provide a curative instruction, a direction given by a judge to correct an erroneous statement.

Trump lawyer tells jurors that 'this isn't a referendum on your views of' Trump

Summer Concepcion

Toward the end of his closing arguments, Trump lawyer Todd Blanche told jurors that the verdict “isn’t a referendum on your views of” Trump, or “a referendum on the ballot box,” stressing the importance of basing their decision on evidence that emerged throughout the trial.

“If you focus just on the evidence you heard in this courtroom, this is a very very quick and easy not guilty verdict. Thank you,” he said.

‘You are gangsters!’: Robert De Niro clashes with Trump supporters in New York

Katherine Doyle

Amanda Terkel Politics Managing Editor

President Joe Biden’s campaign held a news conference outside the Manhattan courtroom where  Donald Trump is on trial  in his hush money case, with actor Robert De Niro and  two officers who defended the Capitol  from the Jan. 6 mob warning about the dangers of re-electing the former president.

“The Twin Towers fell just over here, just over there. This part of the city was like a ghost town, but we vowed we would not allow terrorists to change our way of life. ... I love this city. I don’t want to destroy it. Donald Trump wants to destroy not only the city, but the country, and eventually he can destroy the world,” De Niro said.

Afterward, on the way back to his car, De Niro mixed it up with some pro-Trump protesters, who yelled that he’s a “wannabe,” “paid sell-out” to the Democratic National Committee, “nobody” and a “little punk” whose “movies suck.”

“You’re not going to intimidate,” De Niro replied. “That’s what Trump does. ... We are going to fight back. We’re trying to be gentlemen in this world, the Democrats. You are gangsters. You are gangsters!”

Read the full story here.

Blanche finishes summation

Blanche finished his summation at 12:49 p.m. ET, about three hours after he began the closing arguments.

Blanche refers to jail time

Blanche told the jurors: "You cannot send someone to prison based on the words of Michael Cohen."

It's worth noting that it's unlikely the former president will be sentenced to prison in this case.

Blanche says Michael Cohen is the 'GLOAT'

Blanche says that Michael Cohen is the "greatest liar of all time."

“Michael Cohen is the GLOAT. He’s literally the greatest liar of all time," Blanche said, a play on the sports term GOAT "greatest of all time. “He has lied to every single branch of Congress.”

He added, “He has lied to the Department of Justice.”

Blanche outlines 10 reasons why he believes jury should have reasonable doubt

Blanche presented jurors with a list:

• The invoices. Blanche argues Cohen created the invoices, Trump had no intent to defraud, and prosecutors did not present evidence that Trump knew about them.
• Valentine's Day 2017 vouchers. Blanche argues there is no proof Trump ever saw the vouchers.
• No evidence of intent to defraud.
• No evidence to commit or conceal a crime. "There is no falsification of business records, period," Blanche argued.
• No evidence Trump was involved in illegal agreement to influence election.
• AMI would have run Sajudin's story. Dino Sajudin is the former Trump Tower doorman who tried to sell a story about Trump fathering a child out of wedlock.
• McDougal did not want her story published .
• Daniels' story was already public .
• Alleged manipulation of evidence .
• Cohen is the "embodiment of reasonable doubt." "He lied to you repeatedly," Blanche said. "He is biased and motivated to tell you a story that is not true."

Blanche insists there was no felony because even if there was a conspiracy, it wasn't through 'unlawful means'

Blanche is insisting that there can be no felony falsification of business records because even if there was a conspiracy to influence the election, it was not carried out through any “unlawful means.”

To support his “no unlawful means” argument, Blanche said there is no proof Trump ever knew, for example, about certain paperwork Michael Cohen submitted to his bank or paperwork prepared to transfer Karen McDougal’s life rights from AMI to Trump.

Trump’s knowledge, however, is not required. All that matters legally is that a member of the conspiracy undertook those “unlawful means.”

Trump lawyer plays audio of Cohen screaming on his podcast

After playing audio of Cohen excitedly talking about the prospect of Trump being convicted, Trump lawyer Todd Blanche then played two excerpts of Cohen screaming on his podcast in a tone virtually unrecognizable to anyone who has encountered him only here.

This was more effective than most moments today.

Blanche says Michael Cohen is the 'MVP of liars'

Blanche said that Michael Cohen has lied to his family, including his wife and kids, his banker, the Federal Election Commission, reporters, Congress, prosecutors, business associates and bosses.

"He's literally like the MVP of liars," Blanche said.

Blanche raises his voice in accusing Cohen of lying

Blanche began shouting as he again accused Cohen of lying under oath. He reminded jurors that Cohen testified that he called Trump on Oct. 24, 2016, to provide an update on the Daniels situation, "It was a lie!" he said, pointing out that the call was actually to Trump's bodyguard, Keith Schiller.

"That was a lie and he got caught red-handed,” Blanche added.

Blanche accuses the prosecution of using Stormy Daniels to inflame jury

Over objections by prosecutor Joshua Steinglass, Blanche is accusing the prosecution of calling Stormy Daniels as a witness at trial, but not calling her as a grand jury witness.

Blanche is arguing it was intended to inflame the jury’s emotions and to embarrass the former president.

The jury didn't appear to react to that statement.

Trump lawyer portrays Trump as the victim of the infamous 'Access Hollywood' tape

Jonathan Allen

Blanche may be the first person to portray Trump as the victim of the “Access Hollywood” tape .

Though Blanche says it was not “so catastrophic” as to motivate Trump to break the law — more precisely, that there’s “no evidence” that it was — he says this of the release of the video Oct. 7, 2016: “This was an extremely personal event for President Trump. Nobody wants their family to be subjected to that sort of thing.”

(The video had Trump on a hot mic discussing getting away with assaulting women because he was famous.)

Blanche accuses Daniels of 'extortion,' and the prosecution stays mum (for now)

Blanche just said of Daniels’ nondisclosure agreement: “This started out as an extortion and it ended up very well for Ms. Daniels, there’s no doubt about that.”

The prosecution has not objected to Blanche’s repeated use of the word “extortion,” which suggests a crime was committed. That could be a strategic choice, because what they say in refuting that characterization during their own summation could be more memorable and powerful than a sustained objection.

Blanche claims that threats against Stormy Daniels never happened

Blanche said that Stormy Daniels decided to go public with her story supposedly because she was trying to protect herself from threats in a parking lot that she received five years earlier.

Blanche said, however, that there are recordings that show that's not true. He said Michael Avenatti, Gina Rodriguez and Daniels were lying about these threats.

“They never happened," Blanche said. “The recording makes clear that Ms. Daniels lied to you.”

Blanche has resumed his summation

The morning break is over and Trump's defense team is continuing with its closing arguments.

Blanche said he expects about 30 to 40 more minutes.

Trial takes a break

The trial took a quick break starting at 11:35 a.m.

Blanche questions why no one in Trump campaign addressed Stormy Daniels issue in April 2016

Blanche questions why no one in the campaign did anything about Stormy Daniels in April 2016 when her manager reached out about it.

But Blanche's point ignores the impact that the leak of the "Access Hollywood" tape in October 2016 had on the campaign. Trump's campaign was beleaguered by accusations of sexism as a result of the tape, so Daniels' claim may have had more of an impact.

Fight appears to break out between pro-Trump supporters outside the courthouse

Elizabeth Maline

A fight appears to have broken out between pro-Trump supporters in Columbus Park across the street from the courthouse.

New York City Police Department officers were seen hopping over the fence into the park to respond to the clash.

Blanche tries to impress upon jury that Cohen's recording of Trump call is unreliable

Blanche wants the jury to believe that Michael Cohen's recording of the call with Trump is unreliable because it cuts off early.

But more than that, Blanche is trying to tell the jury that the transcript of what they have is unreliable because while the recording discussed AMI and Pecker, there is doubt that they are talking about Karen McDougal, whose name is never mentioned, or any payment of $150,000, which cannot be heard on the tape.

Blanche says they were “talking past each other,” and that Cohen’s invocation of “financing” shocked Trump, who had no idea what was going on, and that Cohen’s interpretation of “cash” to mean actual bills is a fiction designed to make the conversation sound more sinister.

Trump team responds outside courthouse immediately following Biden campaign

Moments after the Biden campaign finished its remarks outside the courthouse, Trump campaign members went to the microphone to speak.

Jason Miller, a senior adviser to the campaign, called the Biden campaign's decision to have Robert De Niro — whom he called a "washed-up actor" — speak today as a way to "try to change the subject" from Biden's "falling" poll numbers.

Karoline Leavitt, a Trump campaign spokesperson, called the Biden team's conference "a full-blown confession that this trial is a witch hunt."

"This is a disgrace. President Trump has been locked up in that courtroom for six weeks," Leavitt said. "But guess what, the American people see through this witch hunt, this scam, and that's why President Trump continues to rise in the polls."

Leavitt added that Biden is "weak" and "pathetic" and is using "elitist, out-of-touch Hollywood actors like Robert De Niro who have no idea the real problems that people in this city and across this country are facing." 

Blanche accuses Cohen of lying about Pecker lunch. Pecker didn't dispute it, though.

Blanche is continuing his effort to convince jurors that Cohen is a shameless liar. "Remember when Cohen told you he had lunch with Pecker?" Blanche told the jury. "Pecker said he was really frustrated that he was not getting paid for the McDougal story. Ladies and gentlemen, that lunch did not happen. Cohen made it up."

However, Blanche and Trump's other lawyers never entered any evidence backing up that claim — and Pecker during his testimony did not dispute that the lunch happened.

Blanche appears to want to have it both ways regarding David Pecker

Blanche appears to want it both ways regarding Pecker.

On one hand, he has characterized David Pecker as a “truth teller” and someone who, because of Pecker's immunity deal with the Manhattan DA, had no incentive to lie.

But Blanche also tells the jury that Pecker’s explanation that if the story from Trump Tower doorman Dino Sajuddin had been true, he would have published it — but only after the election — is not entirely credible because such a major story would have been published immediately.

Blanche argues the effort to silence Karen McDougal wasn't a 'catch and kill'

Blanche argued that the effort to silence Karen McDougal "is not a catch and kill either" because she didn't want her story published.

Blanche said McDougal wanted to kick-start her career, be on the cover of magazines and write articles. He said it wasn't McDougal's intention to publish her story.

"She didn't want her story published," he said.

Former Capitol police officers campaign for Biden outside courthouse

Harry Dunn, a former Capitol Police officer, and Michael Fanone, a former D.C. Metropolitan Police officer, who defended the Capitol during the Jan. 6 attack, spoke in support of the Biden campaign outside of the courthouse today.

Fanone, who suffered a brain injury and a heart attack in the assault, recounted the attack adding that "if Jan. 6 didn't happen, we wouldn't be here right now, I'd still be at work."

Dunn went on to say that Trump is "the greatest threat to our democracy and to the safety of communities across the country today."

"Trump does whatever will get him votes and helps Donald Trump," he said.

Blanche mixes up details in 'catch and kill' cases

Reporting from Manhattan criminal court

Blanche has been walking through each of the stories that were caught and killed. But he is mixing up details. He mentioned, for example, that Karen McDougal’s business manager was Gina Rodriguez. But Rodriguez worked for Stormy Daniels, not McDougal.

Analysis: Blanche's assertions about the Enquirer don't really hold up to scrutiny

Blanche is arguing that the Enquirer’s reach was not wide enough to influence the election. But especially in today’s social media-fueled age, the idea that a story’s reach is limited to the publication’s own distribution is simply untrue. More significantly, however, the Enquirer’s influence here was in preventing certain stories from ever seeing the light of day.

Blanche pushes back on idea that the Enquirer could influence an election

Blanche, attempting to undercut one of the key planks of the prosecution's narrative, told the jury that it's absurd to believe that positive stories in the National Enquirer could affect the outcome of an American election.

"The idea that even sophisticated people like President Trump and David Pecker believed that positive stories in the National Enquirer could influence the 2016 election is preposterous," Blanche said, referring to the former publisher of the tabloid magazine. He went on to say that many of the articles published in the Enquirer were recycled from other outlets.

Pecker testified earlier in the trial that he purchased potentially damaging stories about Trump and then made sure they never saw the light of day — a practice known as "catch and kill." He also testified that his editorial team attempted to run more glowing stories about Trump in the lead-up to the 2016 election.

Robert De Niro condemns Trump in fiery remarks outside courthouse: 'He could destroy the world'

Actor Robert De Niro spoke to the press as a surrogate for the Biden campaign outside the courthouse, railing against Trump.

"I love this city. I don’t want to destroy it," De Niro, a native New Yorker, said.

"Donald Trump wants to destroy not only the city, but the country and eventually he could destroy the world," he continued.

De Niro, who has also appeared in ads for the Biden campaign, condemned Trump for the violence that occurred Jan. 6 at the Capitol, arguing that if Trump wins in November, "he will never leave."

At the end of De Niro's remarks, a Trump supporter in the crowd called the two former police officers standing with De Niro — both present at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021 — "traitors."

The actor engaged in a back-and-forth with the man in the crowd, defending the officers, Harry Dunn and Michael Fanone.

"They stood there. They didn’t have to," De Niro said. "They stood there and fought for us. They fought for you, buddy. You’re able to stand right here."

"They are the true heroes. I’m honored to be with these two heroes today," De Niro continued.

Blanche says every campaign is a 'conspiracy to promote a candidate'

Blanche said that the prosecution wants the jury to believe that the entire scheme was to promote Trump's successful candidacy in 2016.

“Even if you find that’s true, that’s still not enough. It doesn’t matter — as I said to you in the opening statement — it doesn’t matter if there was a conspiracy to win the election," Blanche said. “Every campaign is a conspiracy to promote a candidate.”

Blanche hammers on the question of Trump's intent to defraud

Blanche asked the jury: "Where is the intent to defraud on the part of President Trump?" He then showed a slide labeled "No Intent to Defraud."

The exact language of the charges against Trump in this case accuse the former president of breaking various laws with the "intent to defraud and intent to commit another crime and aid and conceal the commission thereof."

Biden campaign arrives with Robert De Niro outside courthouse

Biden campaign members have arrived outside the courthouse with actor Robert De Niro and Capitol Police Officer Harry Dunn, who was attacked in the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol.

Blanche again suggests Cohen was bitter

Blanche asked the jurors whether they "believe for a second that, after getting stiffed on his bonus in 2016, when he thought he worked so hard," Cohen would then "want to work for free" for Trump.

"Was that the man who testified," Blanche asked rhetorically, "or was that a lie?"

Cohen did indeed testify that he was upset after he did not receive a holiday season bonus after the 2016 presidential election, but he repeatedly rejected the defense team's suggestions that bitterness and vindictiveness drove him to cooperate with prosecutors.

Blanche then argued it was "absurd" that Trump would agree to pay Cohen $420,000 even though the former president owed him only $130,000.

Blanche suggests Trump, as president, was too busy to be part of 'scheme'

Blanche repeatedly refers to Trump being in the White House when the repayments were made. He was very busy, Blanche said. That he was somehow in on a “scheme” to conceal a repayment is “absurd,” he added

His argument also reminds the jury this is no normal defendant: It’s the former president of the United States.

It’s an interesting line to to walk: Trump is so careful about his finances that he would never overpay, but he was also so busy in the White House that he was sometimes careless and wouldn’t know what he was paying for.

Blanche says prosecutors asked jury to believe Michael Cohen

Trump lawyer Todd Blanche said, “What the people have done, what the government did for the last five weeks, at the end of the day, is ask you to believe the man who testified two weeks ago, Michael Cohen.”

Blanche rejects assertion that Trump had full knowledge

Blanche told jurors it was "a stretch" that Trump always "had full knowledge of what was happening" inside the Trump Organization and his other business enterprises.

"That is reasonable doubt, ladies and gentlemen," he said.

Trump lawyer says there's nothing 'sinister or criminal' about the word 'retainer'

Blanche commented on the fact that retainer was listed as the reason for the reimbursement checks from Trump to Cohen.

"There's nothing sinister or criminal about that word," Blanche said.

Blanche said it wasn't put there by Trump or Allen Weisselberg but by Trump Organization accounting employee Deb Tarasoff, who testified earlier in the trial.

What was missing from the chart put up on the screen

When Blanche put up a visual aid for the jurors showing invoices, vouchers and checks, the most glaringly noticeable line on any of the documents was the very familiar, thick-lettered signature of Donald Trump.

Blanche calls attention to the fact that Don Jr. and Eric Trump weren't called as witnesses

As Blanche is calling attention to the fact that Don Jr. and Eric Trump were not called as witnesses, they are sitting in the front row of the courtroom behind their dad.

“The burden is always on the government, they make decisions about who to call," Blanche said, adding, “They did not call Don or Eric.”

The jury did not look over at the Trump children.

Blanche tries to steer jury away from old Trump books

Blanche tells the jury to be wary if the prosecution starts reading from an old Trump book to help prove how involved the former president was in his company’s accounting system.

Those books were co-written by ghostwriters, Blanche says, implying the ghostwriters did the due diligence of figuring out the system in lieu of Trump’s personal knowledge.

Blanche tries to address toughest evidence before prosecution gets to it

Blanche is working hard to try to pre-empt certain arguments the jury is likely to hear from the prosecution after he sits down. Because he goes first and the prosecution will have the last word -- per New York law -- he can’t afford not to address the toughest evidence for his client. 

Blanche pushes back on hush money argument

Blanche appeared to suggest that Cohen received retainer payments not because of the hush money arrangement but because he was Trump's personal attorney.

"There’s a reason why in life usually the simplest answer is the right one, and that’s certainly the case here. That the story Mr. Cohen told you on that witness stand is not true.” 

Cohen was paid $35,000 a month by Trump to be his attorney, Blanche said.

Blanche planting the seeds of reasonable doubt

Blanche is doing two things simultaneously to plant seeds of reasonable doubt early in this closing argument — establish that the internal records at the heart of this case weren't falsified and that Michael Cohen is a liar.

Blanche argues Michael Cohen was working as Trump's personal lawyer

Trump attorney Todd Blanche argued that Michael Cohen was serving as Trump's personal attorney, which he said was not in dispute.

“He talked to every reporter that he could, pushing the fact that he was going to be the personal attorney to President Trump," Blanche said. “This was not a secret. Michael Cohen was President Trump’s personal attorney. Period.”

Biden's campaign set to hold press conference outside the courthouse

President Joe Biden's campaign is scheduled to hold a news conference outside the court this morning at 10:15 ET.

The news conference is set to include the campaign team and "special guests," although the news release didn't say who they would be.

Trump lawyer argues invoices were false and there was no intent to defraud

Trump lawyer Todd Blanche argued that the invoices weren't false and there was no intent to defraud — and that if the jurors are so convinced, they don't have to go further.

As a matter of law, Blanche is correct, but it is also the case that the requisite intent to defraud is defined as including the intent to commit or conceal another crime.

Put another way, if the jurors believe the documents are false, they do have to confront whether Trump intended to conceal the underlying alleged conspiracy.

Jury sees chart that won't be put into evidence

Blanche displayed a chart on the courtroom screen showing what it presented as various financial records, including Cohen's invoices (which were then turned into vouchers, and then turned into checks).

The chart will not be put into evidence, so the jury can't refer back to it — and the general public may never see it publicly produced.

Trump lawyer accuses Michael Cohen of lying for likely the first of many times today

It's 9:48 a.m. and Trump lawyer Todd Blanche just accused Michael Cohen of lying — the first of many times we're likely to hear that claim today.

Blanche: 'This is a paper case'

Blanche continues his sentiment that the testimony that the jury has heard thus far is not enough to convict Trump. Instead, Blanche argues the true evidence for this case lies in documents.

"This case is about documents, it’s a paper case," Blanche said.

Blanche went on to argue that the case is not about Stormy Daniels, but instead about the payments Trump made to Michael Cohen.

“Were those bookings done with an intent to defraud? That’s why you’re here. And the answer to that — to those questions is absolutely positively not," Blanche said.

"The bookings were accurate, and there was absolutely no intent to defraud. And beyond that, there was no conspiracy," he continued.

Blanche tries to undercut Cohen and Daniels testimony

Blanche tells the jury members that “they should want and expect more than the testimony of Michael Cohen. ... You should want and expect more than the word of a woman who claims something happened in 2006.”

He continues by saying they should want and expect more than the testimony of Keith Davidson, who was trying to extort Trump. Notably, the district attorney's office does not object to the characterization of what happened as attempted or actual extortion.

Trump lawyer reiterates to jury that his client is innocent

Trump attorney Todd Blanche told the jury that they, as a group of citizens, decide the facts and decide whether Trump is guilty or not guilty. He said he wanted to repeat what he told them five weeks ago.

“President Trump is innocent," Blanche said. "He did not commit any crimes, and the district attorney has not met their burden of proof. Period.”

Blanche starts his closing arguments

Trump's lawyer Todd Blanche began giving his closing arguments at about 9:40 a.m. ET. He said that he expects he'll need 2½ hours to deliver the end of the defense's case.

He briefly put up a PowerPoint presentation and then took it down.

Merchan to jurors: You are the judges of the facts

Merchan is giving jurors an overview of what they're going to hear today from lawyers on both sides of the case. He explained that the summations "provide each lawyer the opportunity to review the evidence and give you the conclusions that can be drawn."

"You are the finders of fact, and it is for you and for you alone to determine the facts from the evidence," the judge told the jury.

He reminded the jury that the "lawyers are not witnesses," adding that nothing they say in their summations constitutes "evidence."

"You and you alone are the judges of the facts in this case," Merchan said.

Judge tells prosecution and defense: Don't go into the law

Before the jury entered, Judge Merchan told both the prosecution and defense teams that they shouldn't explain the law to the jurors during summation.

"Please do not go into the law. Stay away from the law," he said. "That'll be my job. I'll take care of it."

District attorney staff members are watching from the overflow room

As proceedings begin today, more than eight secondary members of the prosecution team have come into the overflow room to watch the trial.

The members present appear to be senior leadership from the district attorney’s office, including First Assistant District Attorney Meg Reiss and former Executive Assistant District Attorney Peter Pope, who led the investigation of this case leading to the grand jury’s indictment.

The staff members are seated in the jury box in the overflow room -- an area we have not seen used before for seating.

How long will summations last?

Todd Blanche, Trump's lawyer, estimates he'll need around 2½ hours to deliver his closing argument. He goes first.

Joshua Steinglass, one of the prosecutors, says he'll need "somewhere in the vicinity of 4 to 4½ hours."

Trump says 'this is a dark day in America' before heading into courtroom for closing arguments

Shortly before heading into the courtroom for closing arguments, Trump repeated his claims that he was forced to attend courtroom proceedings in the hush money trial because of President Joe Biden, without providing evidence.

The presumptive Republican presidential nominee griped that the trial is “election hunting, election interfering” because it is an effort to go after Biden’s political opponent.

Trump again accused Judge Merchan of being “highly conflicted” and “corrupt” and read aloud quotes from legal analysts who support his assertions that the former president did not commit wrongdoing in the case.

Trump also complained about Merchan’s gag order that bars him from making disparaging comments against his family members and others involved in the case, saying that it’s an “unconstitutional thing” to impose on a presidential candidate.

“This is not a trial that should happen. It’s a very sad day. This is a dark day in America,” he said. “We have a rigged court case that should have never been brought, and it should have been brought in another jurisdiction.”

Jury instructions set in stone

Judge Merchan says that he provided the jury instructions to the defense and prosecution on Thursday afternoon and that neither side has commented on them. They are now final.

Merchan is on the stand and they're ready on go

The judge has taken his seat and proceedings are about to get underway.

The prosecution and defense in Trump’s criminal hush money trial will begin making their closing arguments to the jury today as the first criminal trial of a former president enters its final phase. NBC’s Laura Jarrett reports and Hallie Jackson provides analysis for "TODAY."

‘Phony’ checks and hush money payments: Breaking down Trump’s 34 charges in his New York criminal trial

JoElla Carman

Trump faces 34 felony counts in the New York hush money trial that is expected to potentially wrap up as early as this week.

Here's what to know about the charges.

Biden campaign preps for a Trump trial verdict: From the Politics Desk

Monica Alba

Natasha Korecki

Mike Memoli

President Joe Biden has largely steered clear of Trump’s legal woes. But with a verdict in the  hush money trial  coming as soon as this week, Biden’s campaign is exploring a shift to a new, more aggressive posture, according to two people familiar with the strategy. 

Regardless of the outcome, top Biden campaign officials plan to stress to voters that Trump will be on the ballot in the fall and that no potential court proceeding will change that fact.

A person familiar with the discussions summed it up this way: “Donald Trump’s legal troubles are not going to keep him out of the White House. Only one thing will do that: voting this November for Joe Biden.” 

Trump has departed for the courthouse

Brittany Kubicko

The former president has left Trump Tower for the courthouse downtown.

Rudy Giuliani's son argues with anti-Israel protester outside court

Former New York gubernatorial candidate Andrew Giuliani started a heated argument with a protester who was shouting antisemitic tropes outside the courthouse this morning.

Giuliani, a former Trump White House official and the son of former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, followed the demonstrator who was wearing a ski mask around a protest zone and yelled at the man about the Oct. 7 terrorist attack on Israel.

The protester carried a sign with numbers representing Gazans who have been killed in the ensuing conflict and voiced canards about Jews controlling the U.S. government and the entertainment industry.

Trump's guests in court today

Jake Traylor

Matt Korade

Several of Trump's children will be in court for closing arguments, including Donald Trump Jr., Eric Trump and his wife, Lara Trump, who is the co-chair of the Republican National Committee, as well as Tiffany Trump, the former president's only daughter with his ex-wife Marla Maples, and her husband, Michael Boulos.

Also in attendance will be Trump's longtime friend Steve Witkoff, a real-estate investor who testified as a defense expert in Trump’s Manhattan civil fraud trial , Will Scharf, a lawyer for Trump who is running for attorney general in Missouri against Republican incumbent Andrew Bailey, and Deroy Murdock, a contributing editor for National Review Online.

Trump lawyer says she has 'zero confidence' Judge Merchan will issue jury instructions 'in an appropriate manner'

Trump legal spokesperson Alina Habba on Sunday expressed concerns about jury instructions in the hush money trial against the former president and the jurors not being sequestered over the holiday weekend.

“Generally, as an attorney, as an American who understands the law and how to apply to laws to facts, there are no facts that support this alleged crime,” Habba said during an interview on Fox News “Sunday Morning Futures.” “We’re not even sure what the crime is. So it’s a books and records issue.”

Habba echoed Trump’s claims that Merchan is “severely conflicted” without evidence, noting the judge’s gag order that bars Trump from issuing disparaging comments on his family members and others involved in the case. Trump has repeatedly accused Merchan of being “conflicted,” often citing his daughter’s work at a digital fundraising and advertising firm that often collaborates with Democratic politicians.

“This judge is the judge that determines the jury instructions. The jury instructions are the road map for non-attorneys and jurors to follow the law,” she said. “It’s going to be critical, and frankly, at this point, I have zero confidence in the fact that this person, who should not be sitting on the bench right now, will do the right thing and give jury instructions that are in an appropriate manner without any persuasion towards the prosecution.”

Habba then raised concerns about jurors not being sequestered over the holiday weekend, arguing that they could be swayed by family and friends who have certain opinions.

“They should have been sequestered because, in my opinion, these jurors are handling something that is completely unprecedented and unwarranted in America, and for them to be able to be out and about on a holiday weekend with friends and families who have opinions, who are watching the news TVs on the background at the pool party — I have serious concerns,” she said.

Trump blasts Merchan and District Attorney Alvin Bragg in Truth Social posts over the weekend

Alexandra Marquez is based in Washington, D.C.

Isabelle Schmeler

In a series of social media posts over the holiday weekend, Trump attacked Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, who brought the charges in this case against him, attacked Judge Juan Merchan and said the case was about a "legal expense" and a "bookkeeping error."

"I have a great case, but with a rigged and conflicted judge," Trump said in one post, before adding in another one, "The City of New York’s D.A., Alvin Bragg, is trying to prosecute a Federal case, which cannot be done, and where there is NO CRIME."

One post blasted the case for blowing a "legal expense" out of proportion, saying, "Let’s put the President in jail for 150 years because a LEGAL EXPENSE to a lawyer was called, by a bookkeeper."

Another post yesterday accused Merchan, without evidence, of being a "corrupt and conflicted" judge and claimed that Bragg is backed by liberal billionaire megadonor George Soros, who has been a target of antisemitic conspiracy theories .

Trump’s lawyers are preparing for the final stretch of the former president’s hush money trial in New York. NBC News’ Gabe Gutierrez reports on Trump’s busy weekend ahead of closing arguments in court.

Closing arguments set to begin in Trump’s criminal trial

Dareh Gregorian

Closing arguments will begin today in the People of the State of New York v. Donald J. Trump , as the first criminal trial of a former president enters its final phase.

After the prosecution and the defense deliver their concluding arguments, the judge will give instructions to the jury. Then, the 12 ordinary New Yorkers who sit on the jury will begin deliberations on whether or not the former president is guilty of the charges against him.

After 20 days in a courtroom, here's what you missed in the Trump hush money trial

Ahead of this week's closing arguments, catch up on what you missed over the last few weeks of the first criminal trial of a former president.

In sometimes explosive testimony, former Trump "fixer" Michael Cohen said that he did call Trump a "Cheeto-dusted" villain but admitted to past lies and theft upon questioning by Trump's attorneys.

Despite promising to testify, Trump did not ultimately take the stand and pushed back on media reports that he fell asleep multiple times during the trial. On his Truth Social account, the former president claimed he was simply resting his “beautiful blue eyes” while listening “intensely” to the proceedings.

Want to use ChatGPT to help prepare for court? This is what lawyers say you should and shouldn't do

With a few quick prompts, an artificial intelligence chatbot can write a song, tell you a joke or teach you a new skill — and increasingly, people are using it to help represent themselves in court.

It's led Queensland to follow in the footsteps of Victoria, New Zealand and England in issuing guidelines on how people who aren't lawyers can use generative AI like ChatGPT responsibly.

Earlier this year in Queensland's Supreme Court, Justice Elizabeth Wilson noted a man representing himself used the program to add "flourish" to his submissions.

The plaintiff, who was awarded more than $85,000 in damages after a motorbike crash, vouched for the accuracy of his submissions, with Justice Wilson adding that ChatGPT "assisted in their organisational structure".

The guidelines released by Queensland Courts states generative AI is not a "substitute for a qualified lawyer and cannot give you tailored legal advice".

"Currently available Generative AI chatbots have been known to provide inaccurate information on Australian law," it states.

"If you choose to use Generative AI chatbots to help you with your court case, you should not rely on this as your sole or main source of legal information."

AI not being 'widely used' yet

The purpose of the guidelines is to draw awareness to the strengths and limitations of chatbots. 

That's according to Queensland Chief Justice Helen Bowskill, who says the guidelines also highlight the importance of checking for accuracy and being aware of confidentiality.

"Its capacity for effective use in court proceedings is not yet fully known, but based on what we do already know it was considered appropriate to issue guidelines for the responsible use of generative AI by non-lawyers," she says.

Chief Justice Bowskill says the most likely way AI is currently being used is for legal research, but it is hard to say what the future will hold.

"It is very much a matter of waiting and seeing how the technology develops."

The court didn't consider it necessary to publish guidelines for lawyers, with law societies thought to be better placed to address the broader implications of using AI.

Queensland University of Technology professor Anna Huggins provided recommendations to the Supreme Court judges who prepared the guidance. 

She says harnessing the benefits of AI tools, while minimising their potential risks, requires a thoughtful approach to ensure it's used responsibly and ethically.

"It's beneficial for new users of generative AI to seek to develop a basic understanding of the nature of the AI tool they are using, the dataset it's trained on, and its strengths and limitations for particular tasks," she says.

"Developing skills in writing and augmenting prompts, or instructions, for generative AI chatbots is valuable to enhance the quality of outputs."

Professor Huggins says although generative AI can help with some legal tasks, it's important for users to check the accuracy of the information is provides before relying on it.

What's the positives of having access to AI chatbots?

Queensland University of Technology associate professor Michael Guihot says generative AI can improve access to justice for those who can't afford to hire a lawyer.

"If people who previously couldn't access justice, had a problem with language or couldn't put their words into the required language, for a Statement of Claim for example, can do it now using ChatGPT I think that is a good thing," he says. 

"If we can make people speak in the language they have to in court and clear, logical structured arguments that's good thing."

Dr Guihot says he believes the benefits outweigh the potential for mistakes. 

"The risk is that we might get some citations wrong, or we might get a Statement of Claim that is not as logical as it should be but that can be addressed, rather than it doesn't go to court in the first place at all," he says.

"It may be just that we have a couple of more people who can access justice, and they've got a clear tool to help them logically structure their argument." 

He says lawyers shouldn't be making use of chatbots in the same way, but rather as a springboard to then use their own skill and judgement. 

In the United States, lawyers have been caught for relying on ChatGPT to find legal precedents, with the chatbot fabricating cases.

Where do 'real lawyers' come in?

Queensland Law Society (QLS) chief executive Matt Dunn says AI isn't disrupting the profession enormously, but has the potential to with its ability to allow lawyers to work smarter and faster.

"AI is great to be able to find information and to be able to start the job, but there's still a role for real lawyers with real experience to be able to understand the facts, understand the law, apply the law to a person's individual facts, and then come up with an informed outcome," he says.  

"It's a very big matter of discussion, and everyone's talking about it and looking at it and trying to figure out how to use it in a way that's appropriate and safe and respects all of the ethical and confidentiality obligations that practitioners have."

He says AI is useful for people to organise information, rewrite summaries, change the tone and for put the chronology of events in order.

However, his favourite analogy to explain the ability of AI is that it is like asking an actor who has played a doctor for medical advice. 

"Sometimes they'll be quite right in what they say, and it'll sound really convincing, but they're not always going to be right," Mr Dunn said.  

Mr Dunn says QLS will be releasing separate guidance on the use of AI for lawyers.

"We want our practitioners to be experimenting and trying things, but they also need to be doing it in a way that's conscious of some of the limitations," he says. 

• X (formerly Twitter)

Related Stories

Government lays out plan for 'safeguards' on risky artificial technology, while allowing low-risk ai to flourish.

'It's not going to stop': Fears around irresponsible AI developments have brought the US, China to the table

The jobs likely to be disrupted by artificial intelligence — for better or worse

• Artificial Intelligence
• Courts and Trials

• Election 2024
• Entertainment
• Newsletters
• Photography
• Personal Finance
• AP Investigations
• AP Buyline Personal Finance
• AP Buyline Shopping
• Press Releases
• Israel-Hamas War
• Russia-Ukraine War
• Global elections
• Asia Pacific
• Latin America
• Middle East
• Election Results
• Delegate Tracker
• AP & Elections
• Auto Racing
• 2024 Paris Olympic Games
• Movie reviews
• Book reviews
• Personal finance
• Financial Markets
• Business Highlights
• Financial wellness
• Artificial Intelligence
• Social Media

GOP advances Garland contempt charges after White House exerts executive privilege over Biden audio

The White House has blocked the release of audio from President Joe Biden’s interview with a special counsel about his handling of classified documents, arguing Thursday that Republicans in Congress only wanted the recordings “to chop them up” and use them for political purposes.

Two House committees moved ahead with contempt charges against Attorney General Merrick Garland for refusing to turn over audio from Pres. Biden’s interview with a special counsel, after the White House’s decision to block release of the recording.

Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, speaks during the House Judiciary Committee markup hearing to hold Attorney General Merrick Garland in contempt of Congress, Thursday, May 16, 2024, on Capitol Hill in Washington. (AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana)

• Copy Link copied

FILE - Attorney General Merrick Garland speaks during the 36th Annual Candlelight Vigil to honor the law enforcement officers who lost their lives in 2023, in Washington, on May 13, 2024. House Republicans are set to advance contempt of Congress charges against Garland for his refusal to turn over unredacted audio of a special counsel interview with President Joe Biden. (AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana, File)

President Joe Biden, right, sitting next to Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, left, speaks at the beginning of his meeting with the Combatant Commanders in the Cabinet Room of the White House in Washington, Wednesday, May 15, 2024, before hosting them for a dinner. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh)

President Joe Biden speaks at a memorial service to honor law enforcement officers who’ve lost their lives in the past year, during National Police Week ceremonies at the Capitol in Washington, Wednesday, May 15, 2024. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh)

Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., speaks during the House Judiciary Committee markup hearing to hold Attorney General Merrick Garland in contempt of Congress, Thursday, May 16, 2024, on Capitol Hill in Washington. (AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana)

Rep. Hank Johnson, D-Ga., speaks during the House Judiciary Committee markup hearing to hold Attorney General Merrick Garland in contempt of Congress, Thursday, May 16, 2024, on Capitol Hill in Washington. (AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana)

Rep. Jeff Van Drew, R-N.J., speaks during the House Judiciary Committee markup hearing to hold Attorney General Merrick Garland in contempt of Congress, Thursday, May 16, 2024, on Capitol Hill in Washington. (AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana)

Rep. Glenn Ivey, D-Md., speaks during the House Judiciary Committee markup hearing to hold Attorney General Merrick Garland in contempt of Congress, Thursday, May 16, 2024, on Capitol Hill in Washington. (AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana)

WASHINGTON (AP) — Two House committees moved ahead Thursday with contempt charges against Attorney General Merrick Garland for refusing to turn over audio from President Joe Biden’s interview with a special counsel , advancing the matter after the White House’s decision to block the release of the recording earlier in the day.

In back-to-back hearings that nearly spilled into early Friday, the House Judiciary and Oversight and Accountability committees voted along party lines to advance an effort to hold Garland in contempt of Congress for not turning over the records. But the timing of any action by the full House, and the willingness of the U.S. attorney’s office to act on the referral, remained uncertain.

“The department has a legal obligation to turn over the requested materials pursuant to the subpoena,” Rep. Jim Jordan, the GOP chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said during the hearing. “Attorney General Garland’s willful refusal to comply with our subpoena constitutes contempt of Congress.”

The rapid sequence of events Thursday further inflamed tensions between House Republicans and the Justice Department, setting the stage for another round of bitter fighting between the two branches of government that seemed nearly certain to spill over into court.

If House Republicans’ efforts against Garland are successful, he will become the third attorney general to be held in contempt of Congress. The White House slammed Republicans in a letter earlier Thursday, dismissing their efforts to obtain the audio as purely political.

“The absence of a legitimate need for the audio recordings lays bare your likely goal — to chop them up, distort them, and use them for partisan political purposes,” White House counsel Ed Siskel wrote in a scathing letter to House Republicans ahead of scheduled votes by the two House committees to refer Garland to the Justice Department for the contempt charges.

“Demanding such sensitive and constitutionally-protected law enforcement materials from the Executive Branch because you want to manipulate them for potential political gain is inappropriate,” Siskel added.

Garland separately advised Biden in a letter made public Thursday that the audio falls within the scope of executive privilege, which protects a president’s ability to obtain candid counsel from his advisers without fear of immediate public disclosure and to protect confidential communications relating to official responsibilities.

The attorney general told reporters that the Justice Department has gone to extraordinary lengths to provide information to the committees about special counsel Robert Hur’s investigation, including a transcript of Biden’s interview with Hur. But, Garland said, releasing the audio could jeopardize future sensitive and high-profile investigations. Officials have suggested handing over the tape could make future witnesses concerned about cooperating with investigators.

AP AUDIO: White House blocks release of Biden’s special counsel interview audio, says GOP is being political

Speaking with reporters, Attorney General Merrick Garland says the audio from President Biden’s special counsel interview that Republicans have requested will not be released.

“There have been a series of unprecedented and frankly unfounded attacks on the Justice Department,” Garland said. “This request, this effort to use contempt as a method of obtaining our sensitive law enforcement files is just most recent.”

The Justice Department warned Congress that a contempt effort would create “unnecessary and unwarranted conflict,” with Assistant Attorney General Carlos Uriarte saying, “It is the longstanding position of the executive branch held by administrations of both parties that an official who asserts the president’s claim of executive privilege cannot be held in contempt of Congress.”

Siskel’s letter to lawmakers comes after the uproar from Biden’s aides and allies over Hur’s comments about Biden’s age and mental acuity, and it highlights concerns in a difficult election year over how potentially embarrassing moments from the lengthy interview could be exacerbated by the release, or selective release, of the audio.

Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson slammed the White House’s move, accusing Biden of suppressing the tape because he’s afraid to have voters hear it during an election year.

“The American people will not be able to hear why prosecutors felt the President of the United States was, in Special Counsel Robert Hur’s own words, an ‘elderly man with a poor memory,’ and thus shouldn’t be charged,” Johnson said the during a press conference on the House steps.

House Democrats defended Biden’s rationale during the back-to-back hearings on Thursday, citing the massive trove of documents and witnesses who have been made available to Republicans as part of their more than yearlong probe into Biden and his family.

Rep. Jerry Nadler, the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, said on Thursday that Republicans want to make it seem like they’ve uncovered wrongdoing by the Justice Department.

“In reality, the Attorney General and DOJ have been fully responsive to this committee in every way that might be material to their long dead impeachment inquiry,” the New York lawmaker said. “Sometimes, they have been too responsive, in my opinion, given the obvious bad faith of the MAGA majority.”

The contempt effort is seen by Democrats as a last-ditch effort to keep Republicans’ impeachment inquiry into Biden alive, despite a series of setbacks in recent months and flailing support for articles of impeachment within the GOP conference.

A transcript of the Hur interview showed Biden struggling to recall some dates and occasionally confusing some details — something longtime aides say he’s done for years in both public and private — but otherwise showing deep recall in other areas. Biden and his aides are particularly sensitive to questions about his age. At 81, he’s the oldest-ever president , and he’s seeking another four-year term.

At a news conference, House Speaker Mike Johnson says the American people will not get to hear the president’s special counsel interview.

Hur, a former senior official in the Trump administration Justice Department , was appointed as a special counsel in January 2023 following the discovery of classified documents in multiple locations tied to Biden.

Hur’s report said many of the documents recovered at the Penn Biden Center in Washington, in parts of Biden’s Delaware home, and in his Senate papers at the University of Delaware were retained by “mistake.”

However, investigators did find evidence of willful retention and disclosure related to a subset of records found in Biden’s Wilmington, Delaware, house, including in a garage, an office and a basement den.

The files pertain to a troop surge in Afghanistan during the Obama administration that Biden had vigorously opposed. Biden kept records that documented his position, including a classified letter to Obama during the 2009 Thanksgiving holiday. Some of that information was shared with a ghostwriter with whom he published memoirs in 2007 and 2017.

Associated Press reporters Zeke Miller and Eric Tucker in Washington contributed.