The great enemy of clear language is insincerity. When there is a gap between one's real and one's declared aims, one turns as it were instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish spurting out ink.
George Orwell, "Politics and the English Language", 1946
English essayist, novelist, & satirist (1903 - 1950)
I've seen many "big firm" lawyers write like this and 35-page briefs that barely make a single point. You would think it's persuasive because -- at first glance -- the reader is confused into thinking there may be some substance behind all the "sound and fury." But I tend to think it signifies nothing.
There are two ways to make a weak argument. First, you are confusing/unclear. I hate this method because it usually ignores controlling/unhelpful authority; the advocate never addresses/distinguishes/reconciles the authority in a fair or helpful way. So, the court is left with the opponent's analysis. And because you don't have a compelling argument yourself, chances are the opponent will have some good law or facts on its side and won't have a problem running away with the issue.
The other way to make a weak argument is to maintain the goal of writing as clearly and concisely as possible. When you do this, the argument becomes "weak" because it is out in the open exactly what you are asking the court to do. Because we are assuming you're working with a rough situation, it will have to be a narrow or bold request -- like to distinguish a case in some weird manner, etc. This method lets you address unhelpful law, and it gives the court the ability to do what you want. But... it may not make the court want to do it. Still, I always go for this method. Judges are almost like professors -- they appreciate honest and clean analysis. And they definitely get pissed at unclear and long-winded writing.
