Tech tools, especially AI tools are a hot topic in the legal writing field, and a lot of legal writers are anxious about what they mean for the future. Not associate attorney and legal writer Neven Selimovic: he believes in earning and using every tool he can to bring clients the best possible outcome. He shares his strategies and philosophy in this interview.
What is your role and how did you get to where you are today?
My name is Neven Selimovic, I am an attorney at Hellmuth & Johnson, PLLP, a top-15 law firm in Minnesota. My primary role is to be part of the Legal Writing Group, where we focus on internal and external legal writing needs. This includes writing motions, memoranda, and briefs for other attorneys.
I got here through my love of writing. I went to law school intending to be a patent attorney, which requires a lot of writing—though it’s very dry and technical. As I pivoted into a litigation role, I realized that what I liked the most in my day-to-day was the writing aspect. So when I saw Hellmuth & Johnson had a writing role available, I jumped on it. Part of my interview was with my legal writing colleague, Brendan Kenny. We hit it off right away bonding over our interest in productivity and how to foster personal growth. The rest is history.
How do you define good legal writing?
There are so many aspects to good legal writing, so I want to focus on just one: Storytelling.
Now I know what you may be thinking—legal writing is supposed to be dry and sterile, not creative—but to be persuasive, you need to tell a good story. After all, that is an attorney’s primary role in litigation, to be persuasive.
What is the biggest mistake you see lawyers make when communicating with clients?
The biggest mistake I see is a lack of empathy. Often lawyers drop bombshells on their clients without thinking about the consequences of what that means to the client. To the attorney, it is just another file. But to the client, this is likely the only time they will be in litigation or a legal proceeding. It is stressful. So when you get a summary judgment ruling that is not favorable to your client, do not just shoot it off via email. Take some time to think about how it impacts your client and what it means to them. Then show them that you understand how this ruling impacts them. Sympathy and empathy are not the same.
Being empathetic requires you to understand how someone is feeling in that moment. It is more than just saying “Sorry.” For example, if a client is dealing with a construction defect issue that impacts their home, and you just got a scheduling order that states trial is not for another year, you should not just share that without context. To the homeowner/client, this tells them a resolution is at least a year away. A better approach is to let them know that you understand how bad this seems, especially when it means living with a damaged home for another year. But you can inform them of how the scheduling order is flexible and how most cases settle beforehand. This shows them you understand how this impacts them and offers solutions for lessening that impact.
Do you view writing as a product or a process? How do you define that? What difference does it make?
To me writing is a process. I cannot do it any other way. What that means is something iterative that happens over time through consistent effort and some objective mechanism or rubric. In my day to day, this manifests itself through my use of the Flowers Paradigm to break up the pieces of a project. I also embrace this by having dynamic, internal deadlines that help me stay organized with many projects at various stages of doneness.
The difference between product and process is a subtle difference of mindset in this context. To me, a written product is something I create in one go. It feels less alive to me, and it feels like I have less control over it. This increases my worries and stress about the project. When I embrace the process mindset, it becomes easier for me to view the project in stages. This helps me feel more in control and less overwhelmed. When I finish one part, I feel a sense of accomplishment that helps drive me to the next part. The distinction itself is not that important, but the mindset that you embrace when viewing writing as a process or product is vital.
Some say that legal writing doesn’t improve because lawyers are devoted to re-using archaic language from form documents or caselaw? Do you believe that’s true? What advice do you have for updating and improving language?
Absolutely not! But if I’m being honest, there is some truth to it. It is really hard to write well and persuasively when using archaic language because it not only interrupts the flow, but most people do not know the true origin or meaning of those terms so they gloss over them.
To counter this, there is a big movement in legal writing to modernize the lexicon. Plain language should (almost) always replace Latin phrases or archaic language. There is nothing magic about these words. Next time you see a contract with stilted language like “whereas” and “hereinafter,” be brave and rewrite it in plain English. You may be surprised at the lack of pushback, and now your clients can understand what it says.
Things do not have to be so complicated.
How can legal writers improve their ability to accept and incorporate editing feedback?
Lose the ego. It is discouraging when you get a writing assignment back and it has more red lines than black. But chances are you did not mess up that badly, or badly at all. It’s likely something to do with the partner’s/client’s style or tone that clashes with your own. Sometimes it could be the partner’s own ego or desire to provide value. Either way, it’s not personal, so don’t take it personally. That is key to being successful and growing. That is not to say that all that feedback is bad. Assess it accordingly and move on.
What do you think of the push to make contracts more visual and less verbose?
I am overwhelmingly for it! I just do not understand the desire to cling to old ways. The only way I can explain it is fear. People are scared to leave something behind that supposedly has been working. Usually this happens when modifying an old contract that is successful for a new project. Eventually after ten or so modifications you end up with lots of archaic provisions that only lengthen and confuse the drafters while adding very little value.
Recently, I had a settlement agreement come across my desk drafted by opposing counsel. I could tell that the agreement was one that has been used several times. It was several pages long with sentences that ran on for a page. For example, one provision discussed that this agreement applied to the party, its employees, agents, successors, heirs, and so on—it went on for a literal page. There is no need for that. It can be simplified to one or two sentences that explain the intent of provision or some other creative language to avoid a page-long sentence. I proposed that change, it was accepted, and now my client understands that provision. So, I am for it!
What advice would you give to legal professionals who are just starting out in the legal world?
Do not be scared to ask and get exposure. If you are an attorney, find a clerking position. Its value is immeasurable because you will learn how to talk to judges and attorneys, see how litigation plays out, and become familiar with procedure. Also, a clerk’s ability to network and meet people is unrivaled.
This next tip applies to all legal professionals: if you find someone who has a career you want, do not be afraid to reach out to them. If you are cold calling, try to provide some value to them. For example, if you are reaching out to an attorney in a field you want to be in, provide some analysis or unique thoughts on a relevant topic in your message and ask if you could discuss it more over coffee or lunch. Offer to pay (they will likely end up footing the bill anyway).
Is writing something you need to have an innate talent or instinct for, or is it something you can learn to be good at?
Like most things talent/instinct can get you only so far. Same with effort. You need some mixture of the two to be truly the best. But not everyone can be the best; being great is enough. Take Michael Jordan for example. People often remark on his innate talent, but what set him apart was his work ethic. To be sure, if he didn’t have talent he would not be (arguably) the greatest basketball player of all time. But his efforts brought him there. Without the talent, his efforts would have made him a great basketball player. Talent without effort will not get you there either.
Not everyone can be the best. It’s perfectly fine to be great or good at something. You can get there with just effort alone, so don’t be intimidated if you view yourself as a talentless writer. It’s likely not true, nor is it the end of your writing career.
What is your writing process when you must write to length and deadline?
Start early and keep dynamic internal deadlines for yourself. There is nothing more stifling and difficult to overcome than an approaching deadline with no progress made.
To avoid this, I keep a list of all deadlines I have for writing projects. Within each project I keep a separate list for internal checkpoints for that project. Things like outlining, going through the four phases of the Flowers Paradigm, and so forth, are things I keep in my internal deadlines. As new projects come in or things take longer than I thought, I update these deadlines. This ensures that I treat each project as a process. I put the pieces together one by one and because of the deadlines, I ensure it happens on time.
How can legal writing become a part of innovation and knowledge management in law firms?
Through legal writing groups and teams like the one I am part of at Hellmuth & Johnson! Every lawyer has their strengths and weaknesses. Some are great at trial; some just want to write. In a full-service firm like ours, our legal writing group can help take the load off the litigators while they focus on trial or strategy.
This probably seems like another layer of complication and you may be asking yourself why an associate can’t just do both and report to a partner? Well, a dedicated legal writing group can take AI tools and a design-based approach and learn to use them really well, them the same way a litigation attorney learns a particular niche in the law. An associate juggling their time between ten cases and four partners does not have the time to do this. The design-based approach allows the writing team to function frictionlessly and serve internal clients. Time is not wasted duplicating work and is instead spent on crafting a persuasive story for the end client.
In the age of AI, is good legal writing a valuable skill? What do you expect to change?
I think it’s more valuable than ever. With the initial influx of AI writing tools, we have seen a sharp decline in quality and variety. There is no doubt that AI can and will produce good writing, but it’s not there yet.
You also need good legal writing skills to extract the most value from AI. For example, I can ask ChatGPT to code something for me and it will do it. But I have no clue how to assess that code or adjust it to my liking because I lack coding skills. The same happens for legal writing. AI can produce a nice-looking memo, but if you cannot recognize whether it lacks persuasiveness or good writing, you will not be able to effectively use AI, at least in its current state.
How can technology improve legal writing?
Technology helps accomplish one of two things. It helps reduce costs because you can get the same quality product in less time. This is done through efficiencies like using AI to proofread, generate outlines, and so forth. Technology can also increase costs for a project, but it will be a much more comprehensive, quality project. With the same amount of time, you can do much more. For example, you can use AI to help you examine a wider dataset in your research.
How do you think about AI and Legal Writing? Is there an ethical way for legal writers to use AI in their practice?
I think about AI as an enhancement tool for legal writing. Given the momentum AI has, it is hard to believe that it is not inevitable in this space. We already see it with ChatGPT and other LLMs. There certainly is an ethical way to practice with AI. AI is not some incredibly unique thing unlike anything we’ve ever seen before, existing outside of our current ethical framework.
The way to use AI ethically is very simple—check its work. Treat the AI as an assistant or paralegal. As an attorney, your name is on the writing. You have a duty to make sure that it is accurate, no matter how it got there.
There is also an argument to be made that it would be unethical for attorneys to not use AI or at least be familiar with it to maintain competency under Rule 1.1 of the ABA Rules of Professional Conduct.
What do you say to lawyers who fear tech because they don’t want to seek “outside” help for their work?
If your process works for you, don’t change it. Everyone is different and not everyone needs to embrace outside help like that of the Legal Writing Group. That said, there are many benefits to using outside help. If you categorically deny them because you dislike technology, you need to reassess what is important to you as lawyer and why you are practicing law.
Ultimately the goal is to serve your clients the best you can. Put aside your ego and embrace the unknown to accomplish that. Even if your method already works for you, it’s useful to explore and get out of your comfort zone. You may be surprised. And if something new fails, you can always go back to your tested methods.
About Neven Selimovic
Neven Selimovic is an associate at Hellmuth & Johnson. He splits his time between the commercial litigation group and legal writing group where he writes briefs, memoranda, and other various legal documents for both internal and external clients. He seeks to bring a diverse and unique perspective to his clients through his refugee experience as a Bosnian. Learn more here: https://hjlawfirm.com/minneapolis-attorneys/neven-selimovic/
