10.6092/issn.2531-6133/7234
The ability to successfully discern and communicate the relevant aspects of a judicial  opinion  is  a  fundamental  skill  that  legal  professionals  must  have.  Despite  its importance,  many  in  the  legal  arena  lack  the  ability  to  effectively  demonstrate  this skill.  Needless to say, law students suffer from this same shortcoming.  After years of reading inadequate briefs submitted by lawyers and reviewing deficient submissions by law  students,  I  developed  an  original  case  synthesis  method.  This  method,  titled  the “Bell Case Synthesis Method,” teaches one how to select supporting cases and how to adequately explain the relevant aspects of selected cases. This original method has been tested for years and has proven to be quite valuable for memo and brief writing, as well as for the higher level thinking that is needed for success in law school and the practice of  law.  This  article  will  benefit  a  broad  audience,  including  lawyers,  law  students, paralegals,  law  clerks,  inmate  counsel  and  legal  educators.  In  addition,  it  is  timely, given the recent emphasis on producing practice-ready law school graduates.
application/pdf
2531-6133
7234
1
en
Angela Allen-Bell
University of Bologna Law Review
Legal Writing
A Primer on the "Bell Case Synthesis Method" and a Lesson on Adult Child's Play
Text.Serial.Journal
https://bolognalawreview.unibo.it/
2
Articles & Essays
2017-09-05
2017-09-05
2017-05-08
2018-12-14
68-86
UBLR
Angela Allen-Bell
2017/09/05
10.6092/issn.2531-6133/7234
68
Southern University Law Cente
2531-6133
1
Legal Writing
en
86
A Primer on the "Bell Case Synthesis Method" and a Lesson on Adult Child's Play
https://bolognalawreview.unibo.it/article/download/7234/6992
2
ARTICLES & ESSAYS                                                        https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2531-6133/7234




A Primer on the “Bell Case Synthesis Method” and a Lesson on Adult
Child’s Play


                                        ANGELA A. ALLEN-BELL †




TABLE OF CONTENTS: 1. Introduction; 2. The Bell Method Explained; 3. The Bell Method
Illustrated; 4. Conclusion.


ABSTRACT: The ability to successfully discern and communicate the relevant aspects of a
judicial opinion is a fundamental skill that legal professionals must have. Despite its
importance, many in the legal arena lack the ability to effectively demonstrate this
skill. Needless to say, law students suffer from this same shortcoming. After years of
reading inadequate briefs submitted by lawyers and reviewing deficient submissions by
law students, I developed an original case synthesis method. This method, titled the
“Bell Case Synthesis Method,” teaches one how to select supporting cases and how to
adequately explain the relevant aspects of selected cases. This original method has been
tested for years and has proven to be quite valuable for memo and brief writing, as well
as for the higher level thinking that is needed for success in law school and the practice
of law. This article will benefit a broad audience, including lawyers, law students,
paralegals, law clerks, inmate counsel and legal educators. In addition, it is timely,
given the recent emphasis on producing practice-ready law school graduates.



KEYWORDS: Legal Writing.




                                            UNIVERSITY OF BOLOGNA LAW REVIEW

                                                    ISSN 2531-6133

                                                     [VOL.2:1 2017]

           This article is released under the terms of Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License


                                                          68
                                                                  University of Bologna Law Review
                                                                                      [Vol.2:1 2017]
                                                                     https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2531-6133/7234




         1. INTRODUCTION

There are times when charm and flattery can lead to an unearned result.
Unfortunately, those times do not exist in the legal writing arena. Legal
writers must be able to deliver substance if they want to achieve a result
through their written submissions. And, in legal writing, what is considered
substance is not fodder for debate. It is universally understood to be the
content of the Discussion section of legal briefs or memorandums. Case
analysis and case synthesis happen to be two of the most important skills
needed for the development of a robust Discussion in a legal brief or
memorandum.

         Case analysis is the process of taking a case apart. 1 Once this is done,
legal writers are often tasked with determining how individual cases
complement each other to establish a single rule. This process of putting the
pieces back together is known as case synthesis. 2 In many ways, these
processes bear a kinship to that familiar practice of toddlers spending hours
dismantling blocks then spending more hours putting them back together. For
the toddler, this is a sign of developmental progress. For the legal writer, there
are but two diametrically opposed outcomes when it comes to this subject-
matter: professional impotence or professional prowess. This is said because,
if a legal writer cannot successfully demonstrate mastery of these skills, legal
victories will likely not be achieved. This comes at an emotional cost to the

†
  Associate Professor of Legal Writing & Analysis and B. K. Agnihotri Endowed Professor, Southern
University Law Center, J.D., Southern University Law Center, 1998. I immensely thank my research
assistant Danielle Kinnebrew who composed the charts contained herein and who also provided
cherished feedback. I also thank my former research assistant Corin St. Julien for her invaluable
research contribution and for her overall support of this project. An additional acknowledgement
goes to law students David Kobetz, Katherine Fruge, Brandon-Rashad Kenny and Davis Peltier for
their review of the initial version of this article and their very useful comments. A final measure of
gratitude is extended to the following friends and colleagues for their critiques and insightful
remarks: Briana Bell, David Bell, Marjorie R. Esman, Okechukwu Oko and Julie Richards.
1
  See LAUREN CURRIE OATES & ANNE ENQUIST, THE LEGAL WRITING HANDBOOK: ANALYSIS, RESEARCH, AND
WRITING (5th ed. 2010); “Case analysis is the use of cases to make legal arguments.” DIANA ROBERTO
DONAHOE, LEGAL WRITING: ANALYSIS, PROCESS AND DOCUMENTS 31 (2011); Case analysis has also been
explained as “[c]omparing and contrasting decisions to assess the outcome of an issue posed by a
factual scenario.” ANDREA B. YELIN & HOPE VINER SAMBORN, THE LEGAL RESEARCH AND WRITING
HANDBOOK: A BASIC APPROACH FOR PARALEGALS 391 (6th ed. 2012).
2
  See LLAUREL CURRIE OATES & ANNE ENQUIST, THE LEGAL WRITING HANDBOOK ANALYSIS, RESEARCH, AND
WRITING (5th ed. 2010); “Case synthesis is the weaving together of cases to create a clearly
enunciated rule.” DIANA R. DONAHOE, EXPERIENTIAL LEGAL WRITING ANALYSIS, PROCESS AND DOCUMENTS
32 (2011); Case synthesis has also been explained as the “binding together [of] several opinions
into a whole that stands for a rule or an expression of policy.” RICHARD K. NEUMANN, JR., LEGAL
REASONING AND LEGAL WRITING STRUCTURE, STRATEGY, AND STYLE 155 (6th ed. 2009).




                                                 69
                                                                 University of Bologna Law Review
                                                                                     [Vol.2:1 2017]
                                                                   https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2531-6133/7234




writer, but matters are even worse for the party in need of a written advocate.
The aggrieved party will never be able to realize results in the judicial arena—
not necessarily because the merits don’t compel such—but often because the
writer lacks the ability to articulate the legal position effectively. The personal
toll of this is incalculable. Conversely, the writer who can demonstrate
mastery     of   these skills increases his odds of                  personal success and
simultaneously fills a meaningful void in society when it comes to successful
advocacy and access to justice.

          Despite the importance of these skills, many official players in the legal
arena lack the ability to effectively demonstrate them. After a decade as an
appellate court employee who regularly read barren briefs submitted by
lawyers and inmates and nearly twenty years of reviewing deficient
submissions by law students and paralegal students, I developed an original
case synthesis method, called the “Bell Case Synthesis Method.” 3 This was
prompted by the realization that the current pedagogy proceeds on a deeply
flawed presumption. It falsely assumes that the sound critical thinking skills
needed to compete in law school or in the legal arena confers upon one the
ability to critically analyze cases and to synthesize them effectively. The Bell
Method was created upon the belief that every adult legal writer innately
possesses these cognitive fundamentals by virtue of having passed the toddler
stage. This method transposes what is organically contemplative into a
deliberate, conscious approach to reasoning and communicating. More
directly, the Bell Method converts an abstract intellectual skill into a formula-
driven one that is performed through the use of a template that is scholastic in
nature.

          In Section I, I will explain the Bell Method by introducing the three
stages of the process: (1) completion of the companion chart; (2) use of the
companion chart to determine the worth of a case; and, (3) conversion of the
companion chart content to a written summary of the case. Thereafter, in
Section II, I will demonstrate the Bell Method by illustrating each of the three
above-referenced stages. My hope is to offer a tool that lawyers, law students,


3
 The “Bell Case Synthesis Method,” created by the author in 2008, is hereinafter referred to as the
“Bell Method.” It includes an original chart and an original method of organizing and presenting
the substance of a case discussion.




                                                70
                                                                  University of Bologna Law Review
                                                                                      [Vol.2:1 2017]
                                                                     https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2531-6133/7234




law clerks, paralegals, inmate counsel and legal educators can use to ensure
the   composition        of   intellectually      satisfying,     judiciously          drafted         legal
documents.




         2. THE BELL METHOD EXPLAINED

“Cases are synthesized because it is hard to find a single decision that
articulates the precise rule of law to support a point in a memo or brief.”4
“Synthesizing authority requires finding a common theme from two or more
sources that ties together the legal rule.” 5 “Often one case holding will expand
another, so the two holdings can be combined, or synthesized, to reflect an
accurate statement of law.”6 The Bell Method teaches one how to select, from
research findings, potentially useful cases, how to discern when a case is
actually a beneficial authority and how to adequately explain the relevant
aspects of the selected cases to a reader.7 The Bell Method works equally well
for objective and persuasive writing. The process begins with the factual
scenario that needs to be resolved and the case(s) being considered as
authority. There are three steps following this.



Step 1. Completion of the Bell Chart 8

The Bell Method first requires completion of the companion Bell Chart. The
chart is designed to address one legal issue at a time. The chart is a private
instrument to be seen exclusively by the writer. It was created to aid with the
higher order thinking needed to do case analysis and case synthesis. To
complete the chart, case analysis is done as each case is critically read and
picked apart. At this stage in the process, The Bell Chart is just a chart. Later,

4
   ANDREA B. YELIN & HOPE VINER SAMBORN, THE LEGAL RESEARCH AND WRITING HANDBOOK A BASIC
APPROACH FOR PARALEGALS 461 (6th ed. 2012).
5
  Id.
6
   YELIN & SAMBORN, supra note 5.
7
   For other methods, see LINDA H. EDWARDS, LEGAL WRITING AND ANALYSIS 122-125 (3rd ed. 2011)
(discussing the work of Professor Michael Smith); RICHARD K. NEUMANN, JR. & SHEILA SIMON, LEGAL
WRITING 54-58 (2nd ed. 2011); JUDITH M. STINSON, THE TAO OF LEGAL WRITING 66-67 (2009); Paul
Figley, Teaching Rule Synthesis with Real Cases, 61 J. Legal Educ. 245 (2011); Tracy McGaugh, The
Synthesis Chart: Swiss Army Knife of Legal Writing, 9 Persp: Teaching Legal Res. & Writing 80 (2001).
8
   The “Bell Chart” was created by the author in 2008 for use with the Bell Method.




                                                 71
                                                                 University of Bologna Law Review
                                                                                     [Vol.2:1 2017]
                                                                    https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2531-6133/7234




the Bell Chart becomes an outline for the written Bell Method of case
synthesis. Eventually, the chart is discarded. This is an illustration of the blank
Bell Chart:9

           Table 2

                                    (Unresolved Factual
                                    Scenario)                        (Comparison Case #1)

    1. WEIGHT OF AUTHORITY

    * 2. PROCEDURAL DEVICE

    * 3. COA/ISSUE

    * 4. APPLICABLE LAW(S)

    * 5. FACTS                                                (SIMILAR & OUTCOME
    (Summarize operative)                                     DETERMINATIVE)

                                                              (DIFFERENT & OUTCOME
                                                              DETERMINATIVE)

    6. DATE/APPLICABLE

    * 7. HOLDING

    * 8. ANALYSIS
    (Law then law applied to
    facts)

    * 9. VALUE (Why case is/is
    not useful? How it relates? /
    Policy considerations?
    Counterarguments?)




           Once a case is read, the writer must begin the process of inputting the
case content onto the Bell Chart, which is comprised of three separate
sections: (1) the numbered entries on the left side; (2) the middle section of
the chart; and, (3) the right side of the chart. The numbered entries on the far
left of the chart is the starting point. There are a total of nine sections. Each of
these nine factors must be addressed on the chart (but not necessarily in the
written summary that will appear in the document). These nine factors are
what takes the mystery out of the case synthesis process because they guide

9
  The illustration contains one case. The chart can be expanded to include multiple cases. “While
comparing one case to your case can be effective, it is often too simplistic or might not thoroughly
and accurately reflect the law. Usually, multiple cases exist for each rule of law. Therefore, the
judge will need to determine which prior cases are more on point and which are closer to the facts
and issues presented by your client’s case. By providing multiple cases for comparison, you
present a broad view of the law and explain where your client’s situation fits into that law.” DIANA
R. DONAHOE, EXPERIENTIAL LEGAL WRITING ANALYSIS, PROCESS AND DOCUMENTS 37 (2011).




                                                  72
                                                           University of Bologna Law Review
                                                                               [Vol.2:1 2017]
                                                             https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2531-6133/7234




the writer through the necessary critical thinking steps. Without this guidance,
the writer is left to his own devices. The next section on the chart is the
middle section. The middle section of the Bell Chart is completed based on the
factual scenario that needs to be resolved. The writer looks to the nine factors
and asks each of those questions, based on the scenario to be resolved, an
inputs answers. The far-right section of the chart is completed based on the
case being considered as an authority. The writer looks to the nine factors and
asks each of those questions, based on the case being considered as an
authority, an inputs answers.

       I will now endeavor to explain each of the nine factors on the left side
of the Bell Chart:

         Box 1-Weight of Authority: Consider the hierarchy of courts. Which
         court authored this opinion? Simply state where the court appears
         on the hierarchy of courts, i.e. state supreme court. The intention is
         to have the writer consider whether the opinion is still subject to
         change and/or to consider the weight of a strong precedent. The
         writer should also be mindful of the fact that a court is generally
         bound only by decisions from higher courts in its jurisdiction so it
         should be noted if the case is controlling authority.

         Box 2-Procedural Device: The legal dispute stems from some piece
         of paper that was filed in court. What is the name of this document?
         An example is a motion for summary judgement. This is a very
         important consideration as cases are considered because different
         procedural devices call for different standards of proof and burdens
         of proof. The intention is to have the writer consider if there are
         differences in the cases, which could make the cases too different to
         be used for support or even make the cases distinguishable. It is not
         unusual that a case will involve multiple procedural devices,
         including some introduced at each stage that the case has travelled
         along the hierarchy. The writer must address only the one that
         comports with the scenario at issue.

         Box 3-Cause of Action or Issue: The writer must identify the legal
         issue that the court is addressing. While it is true that some cases
         involve multiple legal issues, the odds are that only one of those
         issues is being evaluated so that is the issue to insert here. If your




                                           73
                                                                    University of Bologna Law Review
                                                                                        [Vol.2:1 2017]
                                                                       https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2531-6133/7234




           research involves multiple issues, separate charts must be used for
           each issue.

           Box 4-Applicable Law(s): Identify the law(s) or authority upon
           which the court bases its analysis. There are a range of options to
           insert,    including   statutory     law,   administrative       agency        rules,
           jurisprudence or custom. It is not unusual for a court to rely on
           multiple authorities or to use laws from multiple sources, such as a
           codified law in concert with law extracted from the cases. There is a
           direct correlation between this box and box #3 as the applicable law
           should be responsive to the cause of action/legal issue.

           Box 5-Facts: The middle column involves the facts from the
           scenario that is awaiting resolution. In as few words as possible, the
           writer must state the legally significant facts [hereinafter LSFs] and
           do so in bullet format.10 The right column involves the facts of the
           case being analyzed on the chart. The writer must compare those
           facts (in the right column) to the facts in the middle column. In this
           instance, only LSFs are being used. As LSFs are extracted from the
           case, look to the middle column and ask: is this fact (from the case)
           very similar to the fact in the middle column or is this fact (from the
           case) very different from the fact in the middle column. Using bullet
           format and as few words as possible, insert your answer in the right
           column under the “similar” space if it is similar or under the
           “different” space if it is different.

           Box 6-Date/Applicable: The writer must consider the date of the
           factual scenario that awaits resolution and insert it in the middle
           column. If possible, a month/day/year format should be used. Next,
           look at the date of the case being used and insert it in the right
           column. If possible, a month/day/year format should be used. This
           box often serves as an alert that law may have changed, that the
           selected case may not be the best one to use due to its age or that the
           selected case shows longstanding, time-tested principles because of
           its age.

10
  LSFs or determinative facts “are essential to the court’s decision because they determine the
outcome. If they had been different, the decision would have been different…[they] lead to the rule
of the case—the rule of law for which the case stands as precedent….[these facts] can be identified
by asking the following question: If a particular fact had not happened, or if had happened differently,
would the court have made a different decision? If so, that fact is one of the [LSFs or] determinative
facts.” RICHARD K. NEUMANN, JR. & KRISTEN KONRAD TISCIONE, LEGAL REASONING AND LEGAL WRITING 31
(7th ed. 2013).




                                                  74
                                                          University of Bologna Law Review
                                                                              [Vol.2:1 2017]
                                                             https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2531-6133/7234




         Box 7-Holding: “N/A” will appear in the middle column since there
         has, obviously, not been a resolution of the legal issue before you.
         Next, locate the holding of the case you are using and insert it on the
         right column. If the case has many issues, tailor this to the one issue
         that you are analyzing on the chart.

         Box 8-Analysis: “N/A” will appear in the middle column since there
         has, obviously, not been a resolution of the legal issue before you.
         There are two things that must go in the right column: the law the
         court used (at the top of this box) then how the court applied the
         facts to that law—their reasoning (at the bottom of this box). The
         entire focus of this box is on what the court expressed. If they
         considered it, it must be inserted succinctly. Thinking of law in
         terms of elements will make this process easier to conquer. To do
         this, list the law in elements (top box) then write the analysis
         (bottom box) as if it is a response to how the court decided each
         element (as opposed to a discussion of an entire legal provision).

         Box 9-Value: “N/A” will also appear in the middle column since
         there has, obviously, not been a resolution of the legal issue before
         you. Before entering a response on the right column, consider: How
         does this case relate to the factual scenario at hand? Is this case
         useful? Why is this case useful? The best way to determine this is to
         apply the reasoning from the bottom of box #8 to the factual
         scenario you are attempting to resolve. There are two final
         considerations. Are there relevant policy considerations? If so,
         explain how this applies. Are there counterarguments to be
         discussed? If so, explain how this applies.




Step 2. Use of The Bell Chart to Determine The Worth of a Case

Once each case has been imputed onto the chart, the writer must determine
which ones to include in the Discussion. This requires a mindset much like the
one employed by those seeking a life partner. These people realize there are
some relationship deal breakers, such as views on religion, politics, finances
and children. When these things present themselves adversely in a potential
mate, several at once, it’s a hint that the search for a suitable mate must
continue. The process of selecting suitable cases work the same way. All boxes




                                           75
                                                                   University of Bologna Law Review
                                                                                       [Vol.2:1 2017]
                                                                      https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2531-6133/7234




must be considered as the case comparison is being done. Some of the boxes
on the Bell Chart are deal breakers when it comes to determining if a case is
worth using. Once the Bell chart is completed, you must give deep thought to
the following boxes: 2-procedural device; 3-cause of action/issue; 4-
applicable law(s); and, 5-facts. If these boxes don’t line up, you are spending
time with the wrong one.

         If the case survives this litmus test, every brain cell must be summoned
to box #9 where the writer must articulate the value of the case or declare the
case to be lacking in value. There, the writer must consider the court’s
reasoning (that was explained in the bottom of box #8) against the factual
scenario that awaits resolution. The writer must use the lesson the court
taught (in box #8), but do so with the new facts (those from the scenario that
awaits resolution). Lastly, the writer must contemplate policy considerations11
and how they factor into the overall picture. The writer must do the same with
counterarguments.

         When a decision to make an analogy between cases is made, the writer
is showing “that two situations are so similar that the reasoning that justified
the decision in one should do the same in the other.” 12 Certainly, the writer
should be on the lookout for similarities because it must be determined if the
similarities make the cases analogous, but this can’t be the end of the inquiry.
Sometimes the differences in the case can be helpful so remember it’s not only
similarities that matter when it comes to case synthesis:

           [A]t times you will find only cases where the holdings run contrary
           to your preferred outcome. In these situations, you will distinguish
           the unfavorable case by arguing that the rule doesn’t apply at all or
           that it should be applied differently. While distinguishing cases can


11
   Public policy might be thought of as “the collective morality of the people.” See Roderick C.
White Sr., How the Wheels Come Off: The Inevitable Crash of Irreconcilable Jurisprudence: Laws Based on
Orthodox Judeo-Christian Theology in a Pluralistic Society, 37 S.U.L.REV. 127, 178 (2009); “‘Analyzing
policy’ means explaining how an outcome will benefit or disadvantage society. Because both sides
of an issue can generate reasons why society would be better off if their side won, think of
generating policy rationales as looking for the strongest policy reasons that benefit a particular
side….” TERRILL POLLMAN, JUDITH M. STINSON, ELIZABETH POLLMAN, LEGAL WRITING EXAMPLES &
EXPLANATIONS 134 (2nd ed. 2014); “Lawyers make policy arguments when there is no applicable rule
on the subject…, when existing rules are ambiguous, and to bolster other legal arguments.” DIANA
R. DONAHOE, EXPERIENTIAL LEGAL WRITING ANALYSIS, PROCESS AND DOCUMENTS 6 (2011).
12
   RICHARD K. NEUMANN, JR. & KRISTEN KONRAD TISCIONE, LEGAL REASONING AND LEGAL WRITING 117 (7th
ed. 2013).




                                                 76
                                                               University of Bologna Law Review
                                                                                   [Vol.2:1 2017]
                                                                 https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2531-6133/7234




          make you feel as if you are on the defensive, this technique can help
          you produce very effective legal arguments. However, do not feel as
          if you have to distinguish a case merely because it is different. All
          cases are different from one another. The question is whether the
          differences are legally significant.13

“Distinguishing is the opposite of analogy: a demonstration that two
situations are so fundamentally dissimilar that the same result should not
occur in both.”14 If you see a relative connection between the factual scenario
that awaits resolution and what you entered into box #9, the case is likely
valuable and you will need to include it in your discussion. If you conclude that
the case has no value, discard it and begin the process again with the next case
in your research stack.



Step 3. Converting the Bell Chart to a Written Summary of the Case

Once the case comparison is concluded, the writer must, during the written
summary process, include the required Bell Chart boxes that have an asterisk.
Next, the writer must decide if the optional boxes, which have no asterisk,
should be included. If the optional boxes contain no pertinent information, the
box should be ignored.

        At this stage, the writer must shift his thinking from previously viewing
the Bell Chart as a mere chart made up of nine separate factors to now viewing
the chart as the outline of a case that will be explained in three separate
sections or paragraphs. The point to grasp here is that every case is discussed
through at least three paragraphs or sections. Usually, Section I can be
addressed in a single paragraph. Section II normally can be resolved in one or
two paragraphs. Section III can often be resolved in one or two paragraphs. In
each of these sections, the writer must construct a flowing paragraph while
not calling attention to any boxes. The writer simply weaves the content of the
boxes     into   the    discussion.     Here       is   an   illustration        of      the      three
paragraph/section conceptualization of the Bell Chart that is needed during the
writing process:

13
  DIANA R. DONAHOE, EXPERIENTIAL LEGAL WRITING ANALYSIS, PROCESS AND DOCUMENTS 35 (2011).
14
  RICHARD K. NEUMANN, JR., LEGAL REASONING AND LEGAL WRITING STRUCTURE, STRATEGY, AND STYLE 154
(6th ed. 2009).




                                              77
                                                   University of Bologna Law Review
                                                                       [Vol.2:1 2017]
                                                     https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2531-6133/7234




                  Case #1: Section I or Paragraph I

Box 1-Weight of Authority: This is an optional box (thus the absence
of an asterisk on the chart). If the weight of the case is not
impressive, don’t mention it.

Box 2-Procedural Device: This content must be included (thus the
asterisk on the chart).

Box 3-Cause of Action or Issue: This content must be included (thus
the asterisk on the chart), but this must be done in a simple way and
not formally. For example, if a motion for summary judgment were
at issue, you would simply say something like: “in its discussion of
this motion for summary judgment.” You would not make a formal
statement such as this: “Whether the plaintiff Oretha Hailey should
prevail in her wrongful death action after her husband was killed by
a cashier with a history of unprovoked and unpredictable episodes of
violence?”

Box 4-Applicable law(s): This content must be included (thus the
asterisk on the chart).

Box 5-Facts: This content must be included (thus the asterisk on the
chart).

Box 6-Date/Applicable: This is an optional box (thus the absence of
an asterisk on the chart).

Box 7-Holding: This content must be included (thus the asterisk on
the chart).

NOTES:

The content is not negotiable, but the order is.

Section I will always be objective because it is merely an overview of
the court’s actions.

No other content is allowed in this paragraph/section.




                                  78
                                                  University of Bologna Law Review
                                                                      [Vol.2:1 2017]
                                                     https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2531-6133/7234




                  Case #1: Section II or Paragraph II

Box 8-Analysis: This content must be included (thus the asterisk on
the chart).

NOTES:

The content is not negotiable.

Section II will always be objective because it is where the writer
explains the law (s) the court used then shows how the court applied
this law or reasoned its way to a legal conclusion. In this section, the
writer must take great caution to paraphrase what the court said,
did, thought and/or considered. Preface statements with “the court
said/felt/thought/considered”      to   guard   against       accidentally
inserting the writer’s thoughts. Failure to do so gives the appearance
of the writer expressing his independent thoughts, which has no
authoritative value in law.

The writer should guard again using excessive quotes. The reader
needs to see the writer’s summary of the court’s reasoning. Use of
excessive quotes is tantamount to suggesting that the reader should
use the excerpts provided to figure out for themselves what is
valuable about the case.

No other content is allowed in this paragraph/section.




                 Case #1: Section III or Paragraph III

Box 9-Value: This content must be included (thus the asterisk on
the chart).

NOTES:

The content is not negotiable.

Section III can be written objectively or persuasively so the writer
must contemplate the ultimate objective for the written submission
before this section is composed.

Ultimately, Section III should be responsive to the call of the
question. This is accomplished by lifting the reasoning from box #8
and applying it to the scenario that awaits resolution and suggesting




                                   79
                                                         University of Bologna Law Review
                                                                             [Vol.2:1 2017]
                                                            https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2531-6133/7234




         an outcome, based on that reasoning. Before Section III is concluded,
         the    writer   should    consider    policy   considerations            and
         counterarguments and address them if they add substance to the
         discussion of the case.

         The writer should guard again using excessive quotes. The reader
         needs to see the writer’s comparison of the cases. Use of excessive
         quotes is tantamount to suggesting that the reader should use the
         excerpts provided to figure out for themselves what is valuable about
         the court’s reasoning.

         No other content is allowed in this paragraph/section.




        3. THE BELL METHOD ILLUSTRATED

In this instance, the writer is writing on behalf of Billie Holliday. This writer
has located the case of Guillory v. Interstate. The writer will first complete the
chart. Thereafter, the writer will do a synthesis of the case, using the three
section Bell method.



The Billie Holliday Factual Scenario:

         Erica Cane, the victim in this instance, was an employee of the
         Louisiana Office of Student Financial Assistance. Several days prior
         to her death, she notified her supervisor of an immediate need to
         secure a restraining order to protect her from acts of violence
         perpetrated by her spouse. Her request was accommodated. A few
         days later, while at work, Erica Cane received a death threat from
         her estranged husband. Shortly after alerting a co-worker and the
         authorities, she was shot and killed by her estranged husband at her
         place of employment on February 7, 1998.

         Billie Holliday, individually and as tutrix of Erica Cane’s four minor
         children, filed suit alleging negligence on the part of Erica Cane’s
         employer, prompting the state of Louisiana to file a motion for
         summary judgment asserting its immunity from tort liability
         (pursuant to the Louisiana Workers’ Compensation Act). Billie




                                          80
                                                                          University of Bologna Law Review
                                                                                              [Vol.2:1 2017]
                                                                             https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2531-6133/7234




                 Holliday specifically alleged that the state of Louisiana was liable in
                 tort because it failed to provide Erica Cane with a safe workplace and
                 that the state of Louisiana was also vicariously liable for the failures
                 of Erica Cane’s co-workers to procure security guards in a timely
                 manner and because the security guards had not been trained to use
                 the multi-line phone system and, as a result, caused a delay in
                 summoning the police.

                 A district court hearing was held before the Honorable Greg Mathis.
                 At issue was the state of Louisiana’s motion for summary judgment
                 (opposing a tort action and contending that workers’ compensation
                 was the exclusive remedy). The court denied the State’s motion,
                 holding that La. R.S. 23:1031 did not bar Billie Holliday from bringing
                 an action in tort against the state of Louisiana. The State filed an
                 appeal asking the appellate court to determine if the trial court erred
                 in denying its motion for summary judgment.




      The Completed Bell Chart Based on the Billie Holliday Factual Scenario & One
      Comparison Case:

                Table 2

1. WEIGHT OF              (Holiday v. State of Louisiana)   Case #1: Guillory v. Interstate
AUTHORITY
                          appellate court (state)           Louisiana Supreme Court

*2.PROCEDURAL DEVICE      Civil appeal re M.S.J.            Civil appeal re employer's M.S.J.

*3. COA/ISSUE             Tort suit or workers'             Entitled to workers’ compensation?
                          compensation?

*4. APPLICABLE LAW        Louisiana Workers'                Louisiana Workers' Compensation Act (1914)
                          Compensation Act (1914)           (codified as amended at LA. REV. STAT. ANN. §§
                          (codified as amended at LA.       23:1031 to 23:1379 (2012)) (generally);
                          REV. STAT. ANN. §§ 23:1031
                                                            LA. REV. STAT. ANN. § 23:1031 (amended 2011)
                          to 23:1379 (2012))
                                                            (specifically).
                          (generally);

                          LA. REV. STAT. ANN. §
                          23:1031 (amended 2011)
                          (specifically).

*5 FACTS (Summarize       1. Erica Cane worked for the      (SIMIILAR & OUTCOME DETERMINATIVE)
operative)                state of La.
                                                            1. Teresa Guillory worked at gas station
                          2. Employer accommodated
                                                            2. As she was stacking cigarettes near a window, her
                          her request for a T.R.O.
                                                            husband, who never entered the building, shot
                          3. While at work doing her        through the glass and struck her.




                                                       81
                                                                           University of Bologna Law Review
                                                                                               [Vol.2:1 2017]
                                                                             https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2531-6133/7234




                           job, Erica received a death
                           threat from her estranged
                           husband.                           -------------------------------------
                           4. Shortly thereafter, he          (DIFFERENT & OUTCOME DETERMINATIVE)
                           entered & shot her at her           1. Husband shot from outside to inside (Doesn't
                           workplace.                         change outcome under W.C. law).
                           5. Erica died.                     2. Employer refused her request to carry a weapon at
                                                              work (Doesn't change outcome under W.C. law).

                                                               3. Employer didn't accommodate request for R.O.
                                                              (Doesn't change outcome under W.C. law).

                                                              4. Teresa survived (Doesn't change outcome under
                                                              W.C. law).

6. DATE/ APPLICABLE                 02/07/1998                03/30/1995


*7. HOLDING                             N/A                   Shooting is not work-related so no W.C.

                                                              Tort suit is remedy.

*8. ANALYSIS                            N/A                   Law: WC due when injury/accident: (1) arises out of;
                                                              and, (2) in course & scope of employment. #1= look
(Law then law applied to
                                                              to character/origin of risk or risk― see if accident
facts)
                                                              came about because of employment risks or purely
                                                              personal risks. #2= Look to time/place of incident.

                                                              Application: #2/In course & scope? Yes― #2= easy
                                                              says the court. Stacking cigarettes as employed to do.
                                                              #1/Arising out of employment? Court says #1 =
                                                              harder question. Court feels accident is purely
                                                              personal, i.e. marriage. Injury has nothing to do with
                                                              risks of the job. Court feels #2 exists, but not #1.

*9. VALUE (Why case                     N/A                   Useful. Factually and procedurally analogous. Can
is/is not useful? How it                                      apply analysis of #1/ "arising out of" to show
relates? Policy                                               shooting was personal & not connected to
considerations?                                               employment. P.C.? Yes. Counterarguments? No.
Counterarguments?)




                                                         82
                                                                        University of Bologna Law Review
                                                                                            [Vol.2:1 2017]
                                                                           https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2531-6133/7234




Written Summary of the Case To Be Used As Authority in the Billie Holliday Discussion
(Presented in Three Paragraph/Section Format):

In Guillory v. Interstate Gas Station,15 the Louisiana                              Note how paragraph /
                                                                                    section 1 contains content
Supreme          Court      addressed       when      an    accident      is        from boxes #1-#7 only and
                                                                                    notice how the paragraph
considered to have “arisen out of” one’s employment.                                strings these boxes together
                                                                                    so    they   flow    without
Guillory involves a convenience store clerk who was
                                                                                    mentioning any boxes in
shot by her spouse while the victim was at work                                     particular.

stacking cigarettes as required by her employer. Mrs.
Guillory survived and sought workers’ compensation
benefits. In response, the workers’ compensation
insurer        filed    a   motion       for    summary        judgment
asserting the belief that Mrs. Guillory was precluded
from recovery under the workers’ compensation act
because, according to the insurer, her injuries resulted
from matters unrelated to her employment. The court
agreed and held that workers’ compensation benefits
would not awarded.

          The Guillory court approached its analysis of Mrs.                        Note how paragraph /
                                                                                    section 2 only includes
Guillory’s entitlement to workers’ compensation by                                  content from box #8. Also,
separately considering the terms “arising out of” and                               note how law is presented at
                                                                                    the beginning of this
“in the course and scope of employment.” In so doing,                               paragraph and application
                                                                                    appears at the end of this
the court interpreted the meaning of a “dispute” over
                                                                                    paragraph.
matters “unrelated to…employment” as referenced in
La. R.S. 23:1031(D). The Guillory court explained that a
determination as to “course and scope” can only be
reached by looking to the time and place of the
incident in question. When applied to Mrs. Guillory’s
case, the court reasoned that Mrs. Guillory, a service
station clerk, was shot while stacking cigarettes inside
the service station. Thus, the court rather effortlessly
decided that Mrs. Guillory was acting within the
“course and scope” of her employment at the time and


15
     Guillory v. Interstate Gas Station, 94-1767 (La. 03/30/95); 653 So. 2d 1152.




                                                      83
                                                       University of Bologna Law Review
                                                                           [Vol.2:1 2017]
                                                         https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2531-6133/7234




in the place she was shot. As to the latter part of the
inquiry (“arising out of”), the court advised that one
must look to the risks of the job. The court then
reasoned that Mrs. Guillory was not shot because of
employment-related risks because there was nothing
about her workplace or official duties that caused her
injury on the night in question. Instead, the court
noted that the shooting happened in the context of an
ongoing marital dispute, which just happened to have
visited Mrs. Guillory’s workplace. In furtherance of
this thinking, the court expressed that Mrs. Guillory
was shot for reasons unrelated to her employment. In
reasoning that the shooting was purely the result of
marital difficulties and, in no way, related to her
employment duties, the court concluded that the
employer was not responsible for her injuries.

     Guillory is quite insightful. The Guillory court’s         Note how paragraph / section
                                                                3 only contains content from
guidance   on   the   meaning   of   “arising    out   of”      box #9. Also, note how this
                                                                paragraph is responsive to the
employment helps to evaluate Ms. Holliday’s case. The
                                                                call of the question or the legal
Guillory court suggests focusing attention on whether           issue that the writer is
                                                                addressing.
the accident came about because of employment risks
or because of purely personal risks. Ms. Cane was
estranged from a man she had a history of domestic
violence with. Shortly before she was murdered at
work, he called her at work and threatened her. When
the Guillory court’s reasoning is applied, a single view
emerges and that is that Ms. Cane’s shooting, though
it happened at work, was the result of a purely
personal marital dispute and was in no way related to
her duties as an employee of the Office of Student
Financial Assistance. Thus, it is my informed view that
Ms. Cane’s shooting was totally unrelated to her
employment, making Ms. Holliday’s remedy a tort
action and not a workers’ compensation action. As an




                                       84
                                                           University of Bologna Law Review
                                                                               [Vol.2:1 2017]
                                                             https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2531-6133/7234




additional consideration, there is at least one policy
consideration at issue. A ruling suggesting that a tort
remedy is permissible would be unjust to employers
whose liability would expand exponentially. This can
cause harm to Louisiana’s businesses who would have
to bear these additional costs and, in turn, harm the
public    who     could     then     have   fewer   employment
options. For this added reason, a remedy in tort is
advocated.




         4. CONCLUSION

“Synthesis is the bringing together of various legal authorities into a unified
cohesive statement of the law.”16 “By focusing on the reasoning and generic
facts that the cases have in common, synthesis finds and explains collective
meaning that is not apparent from the individual cases themselves.” 17
“Synthesis adds analytical insight to…legal documents and makes reading
them easier.”18 This is arguably one of the most challenging of legal writing
tasks. It is also the one that plays the greatest role in professional and legal
success and, astonishingly, it calls upon intellective processes routinely
performed by toddlers and certainly demonstrable by adults.

         The Bell Method is a proven way of achieving case synthesis. The
results have been astonishing. Prior to the development of the Bell Method,
students would omit needed content from case discussions, spend too much
time discussing irrelevant content from cases, lift an endless string of quotes
and paste them into documents without any personal explanation of why the
material was extracted or students would miss the entire point of the case.
After introduction of the Bell Method, most of these concerns dissipated. When
one gives thought to how high the stakes are at the point in time that
Discussions are drafted in the legal profession, I suspect there is little need for


16
   YELIN & SAMBORN, supra note 5.
17
   NEUMANN, supra note 15, at 155.
18
   YELIN & SAMBORN, supra note 5.




                                               85
                                                   University of Bologna Law Review
                                                                       [Vol.2:1 2017]
                                                     https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2531-6133/7234




convincing that taking it apart only to put it back together is more than mere
child’s play.




                                     86
