Welcome to my blog -- Research & Writing Law Blog. I am Susan McDonald and, since 1998, I have limited my law practice to research and writing for other lawyers. I feel fortunate that I have been able to put together a successful practice where I can focus on what I like -- research and writing -- and avoid things about law practice that I do not like, things like clients and law offices and inflexible schedules.
Even though I obviously prefer that all lawyers would hire me to write their briefs, I believe that every lawyer can improve his or her research and writing skills with just a few tips here and there. Also, especially for lawyers, improving those skills is a career-long venture, and I hope this blog will be a resource for a broad range of lawyers who research and write.
I also believe I can improve my own legal research and writing skills by taking some time to think about why I do what I do. For example, how do I decide how to articulate the issues in an appellate brief? How do I proofread? What processes do I use to formulate the structure and theme of a brief? Why do I use passive voice sometimes, but usually active voice? How do I locate and incorporate new research resources for my practice?
With this blog, I want to share some practical hints that I think will help you improve your research and writing and, at the same time, improve my own skills. It may take awhile for me to find my blogging voice and, in the meantime, the entries may seem helter-skelter. I hope my readers (I hope I have some readers) will comment and respond and guide me in this research and writing exercise.
So, here goes.

Susan McDonald
Post Office Box 150833 Nashville, TN 37215
(615) 297-1599 lawyermcdonald@gmail.com

We lawyers spend a lot of time making sure that our pleadings satisfy all of the rules and protect our clients' interests from every direction. Sometimes it takes a pro se party, however, to cut to the chase and say what we all wish we could say.
One of my favorites is Wheat v. Eakin, 491 So.2d 523 (Miss. 1986).
In that case, the defendant filed a handwritten document with the clerk’s office after he was served with the complaint. The clerk entered a default and the court granted default judgment on the ground that the plaintiff failed to plead or otherwise defend the action. The Mississippi Supreme Court reversed, holding that the clerk should not have entered the default because the plaintiff’s handwritten filing at least made an indicia of defense or denial of the allegations in the complaint.
What did the handwritten note say? The Court acknowledged that “the form and language of the appellant's response are less than desirable and more frank than customary,� but was nonetheless sufficient. Apparently for that reason, the Court attached the handwritten filing as an exhibit. Here it is:

Not only do I deny all of the allegations in the above styled suit, I contend, with all due respect, that the plaintiff must be suffering from a condition of brown eyeballs since he is full of so much bullshit.
Respectfully yours, John Wheat

I spend most of my working time preparing or responding to motions for summary judgment so a law journal article that suggests that summary judgment is unconstitutional grabbed my attention. In Why Summary Judgment is Unconstitional, Professor Suja A. Thomas begins with the proposition that, under the Seventh Amendment, any new procedure that deprives a party of a jury trial must “satisfy the substance of the English common law jury in 1791.�
Professor Thomas describes various common law procedures that involved taking a case from the jury and concludes that summary judgment does not pass muster. In general, the common law procedures apparently required the moving party to admit the evidence of the nonmoving party. In contrast, under summary judgment procedures, a judge determines whether evidence is sufficient and considers only reasonable evidence or inferences, thereby excluding unreasonable evidence or inferences.
I found Professor Thomas’ article to be an interesting read and it seems to be thoroughly researched. I know that I would not want to read enough English common law cases to determine what the applicable procedures were in 1791. Will the Supreme Court set aside Rule 56 based on these arguments? I doubt it. Can lawyers in the trenches use Professor Thomas’ arguments in their summary judgment disputes? I think so.
How can you use this?
Professor Thomas emphasizes the limited role or authority of the common law court in taking a case from a jury so her research may be helpful. For example, you are defending a motion for summary judgment and are relying on inferences or evidence that a court may be inclined to disregard as unreasonable. In your response, you could turn to Professor Thomas’ article for some citations that tie the present-day court’s authority to the limited authority of the common law court. In other words, you could argue that Rule 56 summary judgment should be limited or at least tempered by the parameters of common law procedures in 1791. Even then, however, don't spend more than a sentence or two on this argument.

Susan McDonald has been providing legal research and writing services on a contract basis to other attorneys since 1998. Her clients include law firms, solo practioners and corporations throughout the country. Susan's services include:

• Preparation of pretrial motions and responses, including:
• Motions for summary judgment
• Discovery motions
• Motions in limine;
• Preparation of appellate briefs in state and federal jurisdictions;
• Legal research and compilation of significant cases on particular points;
• Updating research for oral argument and settlement purposes;
• Editing of legal memoranda or briefs; and
• Last minute research assignments during trial and settlement negotiations.

Susan provides legal research and writing services to lawyers on an hourly basis. She is also available for speaking and training on legal research and writing.

I am Susan McDonald and I graduated with a degree in English from Vanderbilt University and received my law degree from the University of Mississippi. At Ole Miss, I was an Articles Editor and Research Editor for the Mississippi Law Journal. I was also the Managing Editor of the Fifth Circuit Reporter, which reviewed pending and recently decided cases from the Fifth Circuit. After law school, I clerked for United States District Judge Tom S. Lee in the Southern District of Mississippi and Judges E. Grady Jolly and Rhesa H. Barksdale with the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
After my clerkships, I worked for the firm of Neal & Harwell in Nashville and then with firms in my home state of Mississippi. I returned to Nashville in 1995 to work in a corporate law department and began my solo practice in 1998.
I am licensed to practice in Mississippi and Tennessee. I am a member of the Tennessee Bar Association, the Mississippi Bar Association and the Nashville Songwriters Association International. I am also a Tennessee Rule 31 listed mediator and a founding member of the Tennessee Association of Professional Mediators.
The internet and outsourcing have enabled me to build a successful practice of providing legal research and writing services to other lawyers around the country. This unique practice is a win-win situation for me and for my clients. I can combine my broad experience in litigation and judicial clerkships with a genuine passion for legal research and writing. With that combination, I provide writing projects that help my lawyer-clients better represent their own clients, without the overhead of an additional full-time attorney.
My unique practice also gives me the opportunity to pursue my interests in legal research and writing while maintaining a flexible schedule that is or should be the envy of every lawyer in the country.