Bench & Bar March/April 2026

2026 ANNUAL CONVENTION OVERVIEW ON PAGE 6

to inattention, or worse, disbelief, as it takes less time to ignore an argument than to cobble someone else’s together from a dis jointed passage. Supporting a topic sentence with successive related sentences puts the author in control of the message instead of requiring the reader to discern it. MACRO- AND MICRO-ORGANIZATION Students in my introductory legal writing classes learn about micro- and macro-or ganization—both are important to the structure of legal writing, and both are reinforced using topic sentences. Macro-or ganization is a lot like the IRAC structure we learned in law school—you must state the issue first before you discuss the law and apply it to your client’s case. Within that organizational skeleton, micro-organiza tion arranges individual sentences within a paragraph with the overall goal of cohesion throughout. At a basic grammatical level, topic sen tences provide coherence by linking the macro-organization of a document to the micro-organization of the individual para graphs that complete it. Each topic sentence acts as a predictive statement, not unlike the headers in a brief, as it previews the claim or subclaim that the succeeding sentences will develop. When executed consistently, utiliz ing this practice creates a logical rhythm, reinforces argumentative flow, and embeds a predictable structure into a memo or brief. When the topic sentences are thoughtfully ordered, the organization of each paragraph supports and reinforces the overall organi zation of your legal analysis—leading to better and more cohesive arguments, espe cially when the topic sentences track the order of a statute or other precedent. This lends credence to an argument as it clearly parallels the applicable law. Despite their demonstrable benefits, however, topic sentences are frequently underused in legal writing. Many practi tioners introduce new points at paragraph ends or bury main ideas amidst supporting details—a habit that runs counter to what we know convinces readers of our positions. The consequences of this disorganization are avoidable: edit your work by ensuring every paragraph starts with a topic sentence

policy-driven--was buried and inexplicit. The opening sentence also lists factors but does not tell the reader why they matter, so one can only infer the paragraph’s purpose after reading the entire passage. It can’t be skimmed for easy comprehension so it may take a second reading to understand. In the second example, the first sentence states the controlling idea clearly and force fully. The focus of the paragraph is clear, and sentences following the topic sentence rein force the same idea using different phrasing. A reader can easily skim this paragraph for the main idea, and it takes little time to grasp. In short, topic sentences convert paragraphs from disorganized junk-drawer-style containers of information into effective, buildable units of argument. For legal readers operating under cognitive and professional constraints, that transforma tion is not optional—it is essential. Editing to ensure solid topic sentences appear throughout a memo, a brief, or even an email to a client helps your readers easily understand and even agree with your asser tions—and that agreement can be crucial to your case.

and follows with sentences that support it. In some sections, particularly ones involv ing rule synthesis, topic sentences might be the difference between easily convincing your audience and losing them altogether, especially for arguments that are lengthy or complex. See the difference topic sentences make in the following two paragraphs, one written with them and one without. The examples are intentionally short and are written in clear English with a professional tone, yet the micro-organization between them is clearly disparate. They are given here to illustrate writing clarity, if not legal sub stance (translation: I haven’t taught Torts in a while, so please forgive my doctrinal missteps). PARAGRAPH ONE: Courts often examine several factors when determining whether a duty exists, including foreseeability of harm, the rela tionship between the parties, and public policy considerations. In Palsgraf , the court emphasized relational proximity, while later cases expanded the inquiry to broader social consequences. Public policy arguments frequently influence outcomes in negligence cases, especially where liability could be expansive. These considerations reflect the judiciary’s role in balancing indi vidual responsibility with societal costs. PARAGRAPH TWO: Courts determine the existence of a legal duty primarily through policy-based con siderations rather than by applying factors in a rote, mechanical fashion. Foreseeabil ity, relational proximity, and public policy are examined not as isolated elements, but as tools for assessing the broader conse quences of imposing liability. In Palsgraf , the court emphasized relational limits, while later cases expanded the inquiry to societal impact. This approach reflects the judiciary’s role in balancing individual responsibility against societal costs. What are your reactions to each para graph? Which was easier to read? Which had a clearer focus? In the first, the opening included a decent topic sentence, but only for one focusing on the factors to prove duty. The real thesis—that duty analysis is

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

MARCIA M. ZIEGLER is the director of Legal Writing at the Salmon P. Chase College of Law at Northern Kentucky Univer sity. Previous to this appointment

ENDNOTES 1 For a deep dive on the history of serial-position research, see Saul McLeod’s article analyzing several different studies at https://www.simply psychology.org/primacy-recency.html. 2 See Leah M. Christensen, Legal Reading and Success in Law School: An Empirical Study , 30 SEATTLE U. L. REV. 603 (2007). 3 In the account of his first year at Harvard Law, Scott Turow refers to reading cases as “stirring concrete with [his] eyelashes.” Scott Turow, One L, 30-31 (1978)) she was a visiting professor at the University of Louisville and chaired an undergraduate department at Ivy Tech Community Col lege. A former state court prosecutor, her areas of research are in criminal law, police accountability, and access to justice.

37 bench & bar