Legal writers frequently draw from source material such as statutes, case law, and published articles. Knowing how to properly incorporate such material into your own written work, though, can be challenging. In particular, how do you determine when—and how frequently—to quote directly from source material?
Writers should never just copy and paste sentences from source material verbatim into their own work without attributing it. Doing so is plagiarism. Understanding the implications of plagiarism helps preserve not only the integrity of your legal writing and practice but also your contributions to the advancement of legal scholarship.
When incorporating material from outside sources into your writing, your options are (1) to include the exact material as a quotation attributable to your source or (2) to paraphrase the material in your own words, citing the source.
So how do you choose between quoting and paraphrasing? The key is to recognize that excessive quoting should be avoided. Writers who rely too heavily on quotations seem lazy, as if they are incapable of making a point on their own. Moreover, most audiences find lengthy quotes or series of quotes tiresome.
Bryan A. Garner warns legal writers in The Elements of Legal Style that, “[t]hough you may be tempted to quote large chunks of others’ writing to win your points, you drastically diminish the chances of having the material actually read.”
Knowing how to effectively borrow from source material is an important skill for legal writers. Quoting source material can bolster a writer’s argument, and sometimes it is downright essential for an author to make his point. Such quotations should always be relevant, accurate, and presented as concisely as possible. And they should always be used sparingly. Quotations should be used to elevate and support a writer’s work, not as a crutch for authors who have trouble putting forth arguments in their own words.