A Primer on the 'Bell Case Synthesis Method' & A Lesson On Adult Child's

• Autore: Angela A. Allen-Bell
• Carica: Associate Professor of Legal Writing & Analysis and B. K. Agnihotri Endowed Professor, Southern University Law Center, J.D., Southern University Law Center, 1998
• Pagine: 68-86

ARTICLES & ESSAYS

https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2531-6133/7234

UNIVERSITY OF BOLOGNA LAW REVIEW

ISSN 2531-6133

[VOL.2:1 2017]

This article is released under the terms of Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License

68

A Primer on the “Bell Case Synthesis Method” and a Lesson on Adult

Child’s Play

ANGELA A. ALLEN-BELL †

TABLE OF CONTENTS: 1. Introduction; 2. The Bell Method Explained; 3. The Bell Method

Illustrated; 4. Conclusion.

ABSTRACT: The ability to successfully discern and communicate the relevant aspects of a

judicial opinion is a fundamental skill that legal professionals must have. Despite its

importance, many in the legal arena lack the ability to effectively demonstrate this

skill. Needless to say, law students suffer from this sam e shortcoming. After years of

reading inadequate brie fs submitted by lawyers and reviewing deficient submissions by

law students, I developed an original case synthesis method. This method, titled the

“Bell Case Synthesis Method,” teaches one how to select supporting case s and how to

adequately explain the relevant aspects of selected cases. This original method has been

tested for years and has proven to be quite valuable for memo and brief writing, as well

as for the higher level thinking that is needed for success in law scho ol and the practice

of law. This article will benefit a broad audience, including lawyers, law students,

paralegals, law clerks, inmate counsel and legal educators. In addition, it is timely,

given the recent emphasis on producing practice-ready law school graduates.

KEYWORDS:

Legal Writing.

University of Bologna Law Review

[Vol.2:1 2017]

https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2531-6133/7234

69

1. INTRODUCTION

There are times when charm and flattery can lead to an unearned result.

Unfortunately, those times do not exist in the legal writing arena. Legal writers

must be able to deliver substance if they want to achieve a result through their

written submissions. And, in legal writing, what is considered substance is not

fodder for debate. It is universally understood to be the content of the

Discussion section of legal briefs or memorandums. Case analysis and case

synthesis happen to be two of the most important skills needed for the

development of a robust Discussion in a legal brief or memorandum.

Case analysis is the process of taking a case apart.1 Once this is done,

legal writers are often tasked with determining how individual cases

complement each other to establish a single rule. This process of putting the

pieces back together is known as case synthesis.2 In many ways, these

processes bear a kinship to that familiar practice of toddlers spending hours

dismantling blocks then spending more hours putting them back together. For

the toddler, this is a sign of developmental progress. For the legal writer, there

are but two diametrically opposed outcomes when it comes to this subject-

matter: professional impotence or professional prowess. This is said because, if

a legal writer cannot successfully demonstrate mastery of these skills, legal

victories will likely not be achieved. This comes at an emotional cost to the

writer, but matters are even worse for the party in need of a written advocate.

†

Associate Professor of Legal Writing & Analysis and B. K. Agnihotri Endow ed Professor, Southern

University Law Center, J.D., Southern University Law Center, 1998. I immensely thank my r esearch

assistant Danielle Kinnebrew who composed the charts contained herein and who also provided

cherished feedback. I also thank my former research assistant Corin St. Julien for her invaluable

research contribution and for her overall support of this project. An additional acknowledgement

goes to law students David Kobetz, Katherine Fruge, Brandon-Rashad Kenny and Davis Peltier for

their review of the initial version of this article and their very useful comments. A final measure of

gratitude is extended to the following friends and colleagues for their critiques and insightful

remarks: Briana Bell, David Bell, Marjorie R. Esman, Okechukwu Oko and Julie Richards.

1

See

LAUREN CURRIE OATES & ANNE ENQUIST, THE LEGAL WRITING HANDBOOK: ANALYSIS, RESEARCH, AND

WRITING (5th ed. 2010); “Case analysis is the use of cases to make legal arguments.” DIANA ROBERTO

DONAHOE, LEGAL WRITING: ANALYSIS, PROCESS AND DOCUMENTS 31 (2011); Case analysis has also been

explained as “[c]omparing and contrasting decisions to assess the outcome of an issue posed by a

factual scenario.” ANDREA B. YELIN & HOPE VINER SAMBORN, THE LEGAL RESEARCH AND WRITING

HANDBOOK: A BASIC APPROACH FOR PARALEGALS 391 (6th ed. 2012).

2

See

LLAUREL CURRIE OATES & ANNE ENQUIST, THE LEGAL WRITING HANDBOOK ANALYSIS, RESEARCH, AND

WRITING (5th ed. 2010); “Case synthesis is the weaving together of cases to create a clearly

enunciated rule.” DIANA R. DONAHOE, EXPERIENTIAL LEGAL WRITING ANALYSIS, PROCESS AND DOCUMENTS

32 (2011); Case synthesis has also been explained as the “binding together [of] several opinions

into a whole that stands for a rule or an expression of policy.” RICHARD K. NEUMANN, JR., LEGAL

REASONING AND LEGAL WRITING STRUCTURE, STRATEGY, AND STYLE 155 (6th ed. 2009).