I'll add to the many laurels laid here at your feet, Steven, good read. But I don't totally agree. Doesn't it depend on writing style? You need book knowledge and a sense of proper paragraph structure to write a nonfiction story, for example. Moreover, even novice fiction writers know to not copy styles (or as, let's say Hemingway, might put it: "Writers. Know. Not to. Copy. Style (: In fact, humans are generally alike and, consequently, live similar "lives" --so, in fact, there's a small, relatively finite, number of "different" lifestyles and lives lived. Having a newspaper reporter career under my belt, I can suggest a writer's tale, be it fiction or nonfiction, is like a news story. They all are generally the same, except the names and places are different. In other words, there's just so many "types" of news stories: accidents, fires, murders, social events.... Same "story" but different names and places. Even so-called major investigative news stories, the ones that are supposed to make heads turn and cause changes for the good. I've written many, decades ago that are still written about today, the same problems exist --just different names & places.

But I'm most interested in the fact that as a lawyer, you don't differentiate that "legal writing" is very different compared to any other "type" of writing (just try inserting your own "style" into a memorandum of law, or motion to compel discovery). Judges expect only the facts, and taking chances using a frivolous "style" isn't fair to the lawyers' clients. I used to read law writing articles that suggest what you suggest (writing briefs with a personalized 'style'). Then I had a second career in law, writing briefs and later editing law reference books ("head-noting" federal court decisions for CCH). In actual practice, I've found that judges are not flattered by fancy word constructions. Well, they may personally get a hoot out of them; but they don't seem to base their decisions on a litigant attorney's brief-writing style.