This statement really had me questioning why this is the case. I think the author is hinting that the modern generation cannot understand the theories of justice and conscience that were used as the cornerstone for so many legal opinions from years ago. I personally do not believe that it has to do with the quality of education, but instead it has to do with the resources the modern generation has at their fingertips. Taking the easy way out of hard problems was not as easy when the internet and electronic databases did not exist. Now, procrastination is possible because we can type in simple phrases and have a world of information pop up. I also believe our attention span has been severely damaged and part of the reason the modern generation jumps on cases with slight similarity is because we don't have the attention span to read any further. All in all, arguments flourish in this day and age because everyone can be surrounded by any number of varying information sources. Although in this context it can be seen as negative, I think our generation has the potential to use these resources and change them into something extremely beneficial with a little bit of hard work.

I love this statement and the analogies that follow for a number of reasons. First, if you try hard enough you can always find similarities between seemingly unrelated things, but that doesn't always mean that the similarities are useful. Using this in the context of legal writing, the first thought that came to my mind was the common law analysis assignment. If you type in one search term like "slip-and-fall" you're going to get a ton of resources. If you briefly read through them you could find the one sentence that is useful to your paper. But, if you choose this lazy way, you may just find out that the case was something completely different and in fact completely goes against the argument you were trying to make. Finding similarity in one part could be like the poison in the glass of clear water.

I really love this closing line. The author just spent a good amount of time thoroughly rehearsing how he tackles a research problem. The list of sources is wide and some may benefit a certain issue more than another. I think the point to be made is that even in seemingly undiscoverable cases, a thorough research structure will usually get the lawyer to a point where they can make a strong argument. They may not find the case exactly like what they need, but with the proper steps, if they couldn't find anything, then someone hid the book.

I think this series of events is quite interesting. As I have begun learning about legal researching and after going on the library tour, I was extremely overwhelmed by the amount of resources. I really like how the author breaks down his step by step process on how he tackles his research problems. He makes it seem like every lawyer can make a series of steps that works for them and apply it to different cases. Once you become proficient, you can build a routine that is most useful to your style.

This sentence really resonated with me. So many professors keep repeating that "this is the time to make mistakes." I have been so caught up in getting my work done and feeling prepared that I haven't realized the next three years are a professional development gift. There will most likely not be another time in our careers where we get one on one personalized help and the space to make mistakes that aren't career wrecking. I think it's important that we use this to our advantage and really try to make sure we hone in on these skills now so we don't need feedback in the future. The window is definitely short to become excellent writers before our first jobs, but it's long enough to build the basics.

Before reading this article, my original thought was, "bad briefing only effects the attorney that's writing it." This is completely untrue. Bad writing can cause tremendous downstream problems. I think back to cases we have read in class where the writing is so convoluted I have to spend extra hours trying to decipher what the case meant. I would find myself wishing the writer was more clear. This goes to show that judges, other attorneys, law students, and even people just trying to understand the law better get frustrated at poor writing. It's important to master this skill for the sake of so many others.