The Importance of Incorporating “Soft Skills” Into Your Legal Writing

VIKRAM DAVID AMAR, JULIE SCHRAGER

Illinois Law dean Vikram David Amar and Schiff Hardin writing coach Julie S. Schrager explain the importance of incorporating “soft skills”—rooted in emotional intelligence and viewing your writing from your reader’s perspective—into legal writing. Amar and Schrager offer four key tips to help legal writers, whether first-year law students or seasoned attorneys, become more effective communicators.

Read More

Joll v. Valparaiso Community Schools

Docket: 18-3630

Opinion Date: March 20, 2020

Judge: HAMILTON

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Education Law, Labor & Employment Law

Joll, an accomplished runner and an experienced running coach, had been a middle school teacher for more than 25 years. She applied for a job as the assistant coach of a high school girls’ cross-country team. The school hired a younger man for the job but invited Joll to apply for the same position on the boys’ team. She did so but the school hired a younger man again. She filed suit for sex and age discrimination. After discovery, the district court granted summary judgment for the school district, concluding that Joll had not offered enough evidence of either form of discrimination to present to a jury. The Seventh Circuit reversed, stating that the district court apparently asked “whether any particular piece of evidence proves the case by itself,” rather than aggregating the evidence “to find an overall likelihood of discrimination.” Joll offered evidence that would allow a reasonable jury to find that the school district used hiring procedures tilted in favor of the male applicants, applied sex-role stereotypes during the interview process, and manipulated the criteria for hiring in ways that were inconsistent except that they always favored the male applicants.

United States v. Davis

Dockets: 18-2634, 18-3129

Opinion Date: March 20, 2020

Judge: Diane Pamela Wood

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

Davis's girlfriend, Orkman, a Walmart assistant manager, shared her knowledge of Walmart’s cash handling procedures. Davis robbed the Indianapolis Walmart with Greer. Greer entered the customer service area, pointed a gun, used duct tape to restrain employees, including Orkman, then returned, with bags of cash, to the car where Davis was waiting. Davis photographed the cash and gave Orkman $1,500. Davis planned a second robbery. Orkman wanted out. Davis threatened her. Davis and Williams executed a second robbery. Later that day, Davis paid $8,000 in low-denomination bills for a Land Rover. Indianapolis Police began watching Orkman, who had worked during both robberies although they occurred during different shifts. An officer noticed Davis’s Land Rover near Orkman's home, learned about its purchase, and obtained a court order to place a GPS tracking device. Davis planned his third robbery with Townsell, who later testified. The GPS tracking device allowed the police to locate the Land Rover after an alert about the Kokomo robbery. Officers arrested Davis, Greer, and Townsell. Inside the vehicle, they found a gun and stashes of cash ($23,862, $9,088, $17,020, $8,205, and $1,958). In Davis’s apartment, they found a bag of quarters stamped “Walmart,” ammunition, cash, and a suitcase taken from the Kokomo Walmart. The Seventh Circuit affirmed Davis's and Greer's convictions, rejecting challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence. A rational jury could have found each guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

United States v. Groce

Docket: 19-1170

Opinion Date: March 20, 2020

Judge: Diane Pamela Wood

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

Groce was convicted of sex trafficking, conspiracy to engage in interstate transportation for prostitution, interstate transportation for prostitution, maintaining a drug house, using or carrying a firearm in maintaining the drug house, and witness retaliation. He was sentenced to 25 years' imprisonment plus 20 years of supervised release. The Seventh Circuit vacated the retaliation count. His PSR recommended 11 standard conditions of supervised release and seven special conditions. Condition 11 states: As directed by the probation officer, defendant shall notify employers and third parties providing volunteer opportunities and educational opportunities; organizations to which defendant belongs; and neighbors and family members with minor children, of defendant’s criminal record based on risk associated with his offense, his obligations to register as a sexual offender, and the legal requirements under the Sex Offender Notification Act. The probation officer may also take steps to confirm defendant’s compliance ... or provide such notifications directly. Condition 18 states: Have no contact with the victim in person, through written or electronic communication, or through a third party, unless authorized by the supervising U.S. probation officer. Defendant shall not enter the premises or loiter within 1,000 feet of the victim’s residence or place of employment. At his resentencing, Groce objected to conditions 4, 8, 15, and 17. His counsel stated, “I’m aware of no grounds for objecting ... we’re willing to waive the reading.” Groce subsequently challenged Conditions 11 and 18 as vague and overbroad. The Seventh Circuit dismissed, finding that Groce had waived his objections.