There's a formula for effectively explaining caselaw Photo of Bryan Garner by Winn Fuqua Photography Legal writers are constantly called on to explain things: how an invention works, how a statute’s wording affects its application, why certain people’s actions do or don’t amount to a conspiracy, why a state statute violates the federal constitution and so on. Among the most difficult and predictably recurrent types of explanation is why a legal precedent bears on a point to be decided. Although every lawyer must be prepared to do this, it’s surprisingly tricky. Just as you know people in your daily life who can’t explain things in an orderly way—their discourse is often jumbled—there are legal writers who can’t explain effectively. In their defense, we might acknowledge that it’s challenging. When you’re explaining a piece of litigation, you’re telling three stories: 1) what happened out in the world to give rise to the dispute; 2) what happened procedurally in the trial court with the witnesses, the lawyers and the judge; and 3) what the outcome was on appeal. We know that No. 3 is a crucial part of the story because only appellate decisions serve as precedents.