How to Build an Expert Legal Writer

Every generation of senior lawyers complains that junior lawyers can’t write. But becoming a lawyer takes years of post-secondary education and apprenticeship, so it’s not reasonable to interpret this complaint to mean young lawyers are illiterate. So what’s the source of this perennial complaint and how can we address it?

My interpretation of the problem is that junior lawyers don’t know how to revise—and often don’t think to do it. When they do, they spend their effort tinkering with text in ways that do not fundamentally improve it; they focus on surface-level details like spelling, grammar, word choice, or citation formatting. In reality, this is just tidying up, not revising. While these features are indicators of carefulness, investing more time reviewing them won’t address the document’s depth or clarity. To truly revise, writers must reconsider meaning, test logic, and rework arguments to serve a strategic purpose.

For novice legal writers to improve, we must show them what to change and how to practice those valuable revision habits effectively. Without these insights, more time spent revising won’t lead to expertise—it will simply reinforce the same ineffective habits. We must help writers move beyond surface-level edits to engage in deep, analytical revision. Without this shift in focus and training, no amount of practice will transform a novice into an expert.

Proofreading Is Not Revision

You already know that proofreading and revision are different. You’ve likely told junior lawyers as much. But knowing and doing are two different things. Our feedback often focuses on surface-level errors, reinforcing the misconception that revision means correcting problems rather than rethinking substance.

But strong legal writing is not just about correctness—it is about ensuring that our writing choices serve our rhetorical goals. Surface-level refinement alone will never achieve that.

Why Novices Struggle to Improve

Cognitive science helps explain why novice writers struggle with revision. Daniel Kahneman’s framework of System 1 and System 2 thinking is useful here. System 1 is fast, intuitive, and automatic, making it good for spotting typos but ill-suited for deep revision. Novices, unless taught otherwise, rely on System 1.

Expert writers engage System 2 thinking: slow, effortful analysis that allows them to identify weaknesses and revise for clarity and persuasion. System 2 revision is difficult, requiring conscious effort. Even intelligent people avoid it when they are tired, stressed, or overwhelmed. It’s so hard that even when writers try to ask deeper questions, they often substitute an easier question—Does this sentence sound better?—for the harder one—Is my argument persuasive? Because sentence-level changes are easier to process than structural or logical flaws, the brain gravitates toward them.

Despite their best efforts, novices unconsciously return to their System 1 comfort zone by substituting easier questions. This means novices can spend hours revising without meaningfully improving their writing. Their effort is real, but misdirected. Novice writers may believe they are strengthening their documents, but they are only polishing the same flawed draft.

Experience makes it easier to stay focused on System 2 revision. Research by Michelene Chi, Robert Glaser, and Paul Feltovich shows that experts categorize problems based on deep conceptual understanding. Because they have encountered similar challenges before, this allows them to see different—and deeper—problems than novices, who focus on easily recognizable issues like awkward phrasing, grammar issues, and citation errors. While these are important, they are not the core of effective legal writing.

To improve, novice legal writers must learn to ask better revision questions—ones that move beyond surface features to rhetorical effectiveness. This means increasing their range of exposure to revision decisions and engaging in structured practice. Without a plan, novices will stay in their System 1 comfort zone focused on surface-level errors. Novices must train their mind to engage in System 2 thinking and revise analytically.

The Five Dimensions of Expert Legal Revision

To help novice writers move from surface-level editing to true revision, we must go beyond telling them that expert writers revise differently—we must show them how.

Expert legal writers approach revision with distinct habits of mind that shape how they read their own drafts, identify weaknesses, and improve clarity and persuasion. These habits fall along five key dimensions that distinguish expert revision from novice effort. Each dimension highlights a shift in mindset, method, or motivation—revealing how expert writers consistently engage in deeper, more strategic, and more reader-focused revision than their less experienced counterparts. Understanding these dimensions can help us teach revision more effectively and give novice writers a clearer path toward improvement.

1. Reactive vs. Strategic Revision – Process Orientation

This dimension is about how a writer approaches revision: whether the process is passive and stimulus-driven, or deliberate and guided by strategic questioning. Reactive revision responds to immediate concerns, addressing errors as they become noticeable without a broader plan for improvement. Novice legal writers usually revise only in reaction to surface-level cues—fixing what looks off or what draws attention during a reread. They rarely have a revision plan, and they rarely approach their drafts with specific questions in mind. So their revisions are usually inconsistent, shallow, and disconnected from the document’s larger goals. A reactive approach may result in a grammatically sound but conceptually weak document.

Expert writers revise strategically. They bring a mental checklist or set of purposeful questions to the revision process. They ask whether each section advances the legal argument, whether facts are introduced at the most effective moment, and whether the reader is being moved efficiently toward the desired conclusion. They assess not only what’s present on the page, but what might be missing, misplaced, or misleading.

Linda Flower and John R. Hayes, in their foundational article A Cognitive Process Theory of Writing, frame writing as a recursive, goal-driven activity—one where expert writers are constantly evaluating and revising based on evolving intentions. Nancy Sommers echoes this in her study Revision Strategies of Student Writers and Experienced Adult Writers, noting that student writers see revision as linear and superficial, while experienced writers use revision to rethink their initial decisions and redefine their goals. In The Revision Process in Legal Writing: Seeing Better to Write Better, Christopher Anzidei criticizes the “assembly-line” model that many novice legal writers adopt, arguing that revision is not a mechanical clean-up phase but a dynamic, recursive practice essential to meaning-making.

This dimension overlaps with others, especially Surface-Level vs. Deep Structural Changes and Intuition vs. Deliberate Metacognitive Reflection, because reactive revision usually focuses on surface-level issues and relies on intuition to notice what seems “off.” But the root difference is process orientation: experts revise by asking targeted questions that align with purpose and audience; while novices revise only in response to what they happen to see.

2. Surface-Level Edits vs. Deep Structural Changes – Depth of Change

This dimension is about the depth of revision: whether writers are making cosmetic, meaning-preserving changes or structural, meaning-altering ones. Novice legal writers usually confine their revisions to surface-level edits, such as fixing typos and grammar, tweaking word choice, or smoothing out awkward sentences. These edits rarely change the structure, reasoning, or rhetorical force of the document. In fact, novices often avoid changes that would alter meaning or require rethinking how the document is organized. Once a draft feels “done,” they view revision as clean-up—not as an opportunity to make substantive improvements. But an error-free document can still be unclear or unpersuasive.

Expert writers embrace revision as a process of rethinking and restructuring. They’re willing to make deep structural changes, even if that means rewriting large portions of the document or changing the overall organization. Experts don’t assume they got it right the first time. They revisit their argument’s flow, the placement of key facts, and the framing of legal issues. They ask hard questions: Is this the best way to build this argument? Am I layering information in a way that helps the reader follow and remember it? Should this paragraph come earlier? They revise not just to polish the document, but to make it more effective, more strategic, and more reader-friendly. These changes can feel drastic, but expert writers know that achieving clarity, structure, and persuasion are more important than protecting early effort.

This difference is well-documented in foundational revision studies. In Revision Strategies, Sommers found that student writers equated revision with rewording, while experienced writers made structural changes that reshaped meaning. In Analyzing Revision, Lester Faigley and Stephen Witte developed a taxonomy that distinguished between surface changes and meaning changes. Their research showed that novice writers overwhelmingly made changes that preserved existing meaning, while expert writers revised at the macrostructural level—affecting logic, organization, and overall argument.

Anzidei, in The Revision Process in Legal Writing, applies these insights directly to legal writers. He saw that novice law students made far more “micro-revisions” (such as fixing word order or grammar) than “macro-revisions” that introduced or removed ideas and reorganized structure. Anzidei argues that meaningful legal revision must go beyond error correction—it must include reconceiving arguments and resolving rhetorical dissonance.

This dimension overlaps with Strategic Revision and Metacognitive Reflection, since deeper revisions often result from asking the right questions and reflecting on what’s not working. But the source of difference here is the depth of change the writer is open to: novice writers treat the draft as fixed and aim to clean up what’s already there; expert writers treat it as fluid, always subject to improvement if it better serves the document’s purpose.

3. Corrective vs. Rhetorical Views of Grammar – View of Language Rules

This dimension is about how legal writers perceive and use grammar: whether they see it as a system of rules to avoid errors, or as a rhetorical tool to enhance clarity, emphasis, and persuasion. Novice writers usually hold a corrective view. Grammar feels restrictive—something external imposed on their writing that they must comply with to avoid negative consequences. This mindset leads them to focus on fixing sentence-level errors in ways that feel safe.

Expert legal writers take a fundamentally different view. They see grammar not as a constraint, but as a resource. For them, grammar is a set of tools that help shape meaning, guide emphasis, and influence how the reader understands and reacts to the text. They use sentence structure to build momentum, create contrast, highlight key facts, or manage pacing. They know how a sentence’s rhythm and syntax can either smooth the reader’s path or create deliberate friction to slow the reader down and support a difficult point. They aren’t afraid to break a rule for effect, such as using fragments, passive voice, or writing in long sentences if doing so serves a clear persuasive or stylistic purpose. They have internalized the rules well enough to manipulate them confidently. Grammar becomes a tool of advocacy, not a set of traps to avoid.

In Rhetorical Grammar: Grammatical Choices, Rhetorical Effects, Martha Kolln and Loretta Gray frame grammar as a resource for rhetorical action. Their work shows that grammar is not about conformity but about clarity and strategy. Legal writers who embrace this view can construct sentences that are correct, compelling, and reader-centered.

Aida M. Alaka, in both The Grammar Wars Come to Law School and The Phenomenology of Error in Legal Writing, explores how an overemphasis on grammatical correctness can distract novice legal writers from more important communicative goals. Her work shows that fear of making mistakes often leads law students to fixate on surface features, rather than revising for structure, strategy, or reader understanding. Martha Faulk makes a similar point in The Matter of Mistakes, warning that the legal profession’s obsession with “perfect” language may stifle clarity and undermine confidence—especially for developing writers.

This dimension overlaps with Reader-Centered Revision, because a rhetorical approach to grammar requires careful consideration of the reader’s experience. It also connects with Metacognitive Reflection, since using grammar rhetorically requires the writer to be aware of how form serves function. But the key difference lies in orientation toward language: novices aim to avoid being wrong; experts aim to be effective.

4. Intuition vs. Deliberate Metacognitive Reflection – Cognitive Stance

This dimension is about a writer’s awareness of their own thinking process: whether they operate on unexamined intuition or engage in deliberate, reflective analysis of their writing. Novice writers rely heavily on intuition. They do what “feels right” in the moment, using internalized habits or vague impressions to make decisions. So they struggle to identify weaknesses in argument, structure, or clarity—especially when those weaknesses aren’t immediately visible. They often believe that if something seems clear to them, it will be clear to others. They rarely stop to assess the effectiveness of their choices or consider alternative approaches. This repetition of the same patterns without noticing what’s ineffective leads to stagnation.

Expert writers think about how they write, why they write that way, and what impact their choices will have on the reader, which shows metacognitive reflection. They are aware of their own thinking processes and question their assumptions. They ask: What assumptions am I making about what the reader knows? They examine the writing and their own cognitive blind spots; they’re willing to revise their process, not just the product. They extract lessons from feedback and from prior drafts and they adapt their new methods to new genres, audiences, or contexts. Metacognitive reflection enables expert writers to keep growing.

In A Cognitive Process Theory of Writing, Flower and Hayes describe writing as a recursive, problem-solving process, in which writers constantly set and reassess goals. Their work highlights how expert writers pause, reflect, and revise in light of evolving understanding—not just of the content, but of their writing strategy. Sondra Perl’s research on the composing process, especially in her article Understanding Composing, similarly reveals that experienced writers often loop back through rereading, reassessing, and re-planning—a process novices often resist or simply don’t realize is available to them.

Further support comes from Adam M. Persky and Jennifer D. Robinson in Moving from Novice to Expertise and Its Implications for Instruction, which explains that expertise grows from deliberate, structured practice paired with reflection. Experts don’t just practice more—they practice better, with continuous self-monitoring, feedback integration, and goal adjustment. Novices who fail to develop this reflective habit plateau early and revise without meaningful improvement.

This dimension overlaps with Strategic Revision and Structural Change, because metacognitive reflection enables both. It also connects with Reader-Centered Revision, since self-awareness helps a writer recognize the gap between what they meant and what the reader may actually take away. But the key difference here is cognitive stance: novices trust their instincts without examining them; experts think about how they think.

5. Writer-Centered vs. Reader-Centered Revision – Audience Awareness

This dimension is about who the writer is focused on during revision: the writer’s own understanding or the reader’s perspective and needs. It takes serious effort to write with the reader in mind. Most writers default to evaluating from their own perspective. This is particularly true for novices. And familiarity with the material makes it difficult to recognize ambiguity, missing context, or gaps in reasoning. The writer knows what each sentence is supposed to convey and mentally fills in anything unsaid, making it easy to assume that meaning is just as clear to the reader. Since they already know what they meant to say, novice legal writers usually revise with a writer-centered mindset. Their primary concern is whether the draft makes sense to them or whether it meets the expectations of a supervisor.

Expert writers revise with the reader at the center, recognizing that meaning is not automatic—it must be constructed. They understand that legal writing is functional writing—it exists to help someone else understand, decide, and act. So experts ask: Will my reader understand this on the first pass? Have I framed this in a way that aligns with how they think? Am I making their job easier or harder? Their revisions are grounded in empathy, clarity, and an awareness of how information is received and processed by others. They anticipate confusion, adjust for tone and pacing, simplify complexity, and clarify structure—not because the draft is unclear to them, but because it might be unclear to someone else. This shift in perspective ensures that revision improves the communicative power of the document.

James F. Stratman, in Teaching Lawyers to Revise for the Real World: A Role for Reader Protocols, explores how expert legal writers revise based on simulations of how actual readers will process legal texts. He argues that good revision requires an accurate mental model of the reader’s goals, needs, and limitations. Expert legal writers can anticipate when readers will get lost, misinterpret a point, or become overwhelmed. Novices often assume the reader will “get it” because the writer does. Stratman’s work shows that to revise effectively, writers must step out of their own mental frame and into the reader’s.

Patricia Grande Montana makes a similar case in Better Revision: Encouraging Student Writers to See Through the Eyes of the Reader, where she argues that most law students stop revising once the writing is clear to them. True revision, she says, requires students to abandon their own perspective and adopt the reader’s—to become a surrogate audience for their own draft. Without that shift, even sincere revision efforts fall short of producing reader-friendly legal writing.

This dimension overlaps with Rhetorical Grammar, because many reader-focused decisions happen at the sentence level. It also ties into Metacognitive Reflection, since being reader-centered requires stepping outside one’s own perspective. But the core difference is orientation: novice writers focus on how the draft works for them; expert writers focus on how the document performs for the reader, especially given the legal task at hand.