Interview

Interview on Legal Writing I interviewed a of political science called Bob Weisberg, who lectures at the Oregon State University. I am interested in law and was aware the professor does not teach law, his record relates to law experience. For instance, he has taught law-related disciplines in the past and worked as a lawyer. I expected that he had enough knowledge of the law. I later found out that he wrote law briefs concerning different lawsuits on behalf of his clients. In addition, he also edited and contributed to an article in the UCLA Law review.
The professor’s first question was what type of law I wanted to write. Answering the question was challenge because I expected to write about law. I revealed my state of lack of information concerning the question. His response was that there were many commonalities across the different types of law. He noted that for relevance, one should specialize in one of them, for instance, the criminal environment, the civil rights, and others. I stuck to my generalized approach, which the professor agreed.
The first question I asked the professor was what kind of experience he had gained that are useful in his writings. He answered by telling me that experience gives writes a part of the story to tell the readers. He said that a writer has to be extremely relevant, which is why experience counts. He elaborated his life at the University where he was a member of the law editorial column of the school’s magazine. Experience formed a core of his writings because it quotes precise parts of both the federal and state legislations. He said that he needed to be as relevant as possible to the law so that his perspective may appeal to the readers. In answering the question, I learned that he meant that the practice of legal writing is not a creative writing, but a factual field with lots of criticism. What the professor had learned in life was a crucial element of his works.
The next question, which I asked was if there was any limitation to the type of writing especially in style and thematic concerns. Mr. Weisberg replied that there were limitations of course to the themes and style of writing. He alluded to the lack of creative perspectives to legal writings. He said that the authors in such fields should stick to what is factual and not speculated of fictional. For instance, the authors should stick to the legal vocabulary because of its complexity. According to the professor, the legal vocabulary is so complex that even the lawyers have to keep referring to a continued relevance. He demonstrated by quoting from one of his favorite books that the law is also limited thematically.
I also wanted to learn of the professor’s life in relevance to what he writes. He responded by reminding me of the need for passion in what people do. He meant that yes; he exercised what he wrote because he thought that was the best approach. He has to research on the lawsuits, which means a busy life in the legal framework. He said he taught about it for writers in other fields because a writer gets inspiration to work hard by reflecting on the community life in their works.
I wanted the professor to advise me on the most successful approaches to legal writing. He responded by telling me that the field, similar to any other, demands dedication and commitment. He said that authors should find the best way of addressing the readers in their opinions. While voicing their views, they should be as relevant as possible to logic and community values.