By Andrew Cohen
Advanced legal writing skills often lead to rewarding careers in the law. Claudia Liss-Schultz ’25 and Kayvon Seif-Naraghi ’25 each took a recent leap forward on that path — and received a $2,500 prize — after winning this year’s Continuing Education of the Bar (CEB) Award for Excellence in Legal Research and Writing at Berkeley Law.
A joint committee of the University of California and the State Bar of California, the CEB provides practice guides, ongoing education, and other professional resources to state bar members. It established the annual award to honor Berkeley Law students who demonstrate outstanding performance in the school’s Legal Research, Analysis, and Writing Program.
Liss-Schultz, Seif-Naraghi, and 16 classmates became eligible for the award last spring after receiving Best Brief honors in their first-year sections. Instructors picked the top brief representing the plaintiff and top brief representing the defendant in every section, and from those entries an independent panel — Berkeley Law Legal Writing Professors Emily Berry and Lindsay Sturges Saffouri and Rutgers Law Adjunct Professor David Kemp — chose the best one from each side.
“It’s hard to translate complex legal arguments into writing. But beyond that, this was really my first foray into persuasive legal writing and I felt pretty nervous about it,” Liss-Schultz says. “I tend to be more measured than combative, so this assignment pushed me out of my comfort zone a bit. But I ended up finding the experience incredibly rewarding. I tried to remember that there are many ways to be persuasive.”
Like all Berkeley Law 1Ls, the Best Brief winners first completed the Legal Research and Writing class during their fall semester. The class teaches students how to read cases, research legal problems, choose precedent, and write legal memoranda on topics involving state and federal law.
During the spring Written and Oral Advocacy course, students learn more advanced research techniques and how to write a brief. After receiving a hypothetical case based on a federal issue, they research case law, write competitive briefs, and argue their position in a moot court setting.
Liss-Schultz and Seif-Naraghi were taught in both courses by Legal Writing Professor Michelle Cole.
“Professor Cole gave our class a supportive, low-stakes, and fun introduction to legal writing,” Seif-Naraghi says. “The deadlines were carefully set to prevent students from procrastinating too much — hopefully that sticks — and the hypothetical cases were detailed and entertaining. Through both classes, we were able to gain a solid foundation while feeling free to make mistakes and learn from them. Professor Cole provided thoughtful feedback on all of our drafts to facilitate that.”
Cole hails both award recipients for their stellar work culminating in clear, concise, and extremely persuasive final briefs.
“Claudia and Kayvon worked tirelessly on them, making their way through scores of drafts and office hour visits,” Cole says. “They were rewarded with superb briefs that were precise, brimming with compelling arguments, and a pleasure to read.”
Hunting for angles
The hypothetical case was based on a true event from 2021, when actor and hunting enthusiast Chris Pratt sparked controversy for his social media posts about hunting. In the competition’s fact pattern, Pratt sued TopArt, Inc,. for unauthorized use of his image on a hugely popular T-shirt the company created and sold.
The shirt featured a picture of Pratt posing for a selfie with a dinosaur from his most recent Jurassic World movie. Above the image were the words “Bag selfies, not Bulls” (a reference to male elk), and on the back of the shirt the words “Hunting hurts!” and “#StopAnimalCruelty.” At issue: whether TopArt has a defense to Pratt’s right of publicity claim.
One statutory defense applies to protect the shirt if it uses Pratt’s image to report information to the public about a matter of public affairs. Alternatively, there is no defense if the T-shirt merely uses Pratt’s image as “window dressing” to attract attention to TopArt and its products. Seif-Naraghi represented Pratt in the case, and Liss-Schultz represented TopArt.
“Claudia made excellent use of the facts from the record, making made it easy to see the shirt, with its use of Pratt as the vehicle for its anti-hunting message, as a report on an important matter of public interest that is precisely the type of use that should be protected under an exemption to the right of publicity statute,” Cole says.
“Kayvon’s brief presented Pratt’s response with persuasive flair: Pratt’s image was merely used to get attention and sell T-shirts at Pratt’s expense — an act that violated Pratt’s right of publicity. Kayvon’s brief showcased the law and facts, presenting multiple reasons why TopArt’s use of Pratt’s image should not be protected.”
Cole adds that the legal writing faculty find teaching Berkeley Law’s 1Ls enormously gratifying, especially watching their arc from struggling to grasp their first case to acquiring a sophisticated understanding of research, analysis, and writing. She calls reviewing the final briefs, and watching students employ the skills they’ve worked on all year, a rewarding highlight.
Liss-Schultz saw considerable improvement in her writing over the course of the year.
“I think part of that just came from building confidence through practice, but a big part also came from Professor Cole’s incredibly thorough and helpful feedback on each assignment,” she says. “Clarity is so critical to good legal writing, and it usually takes a lot of refining to figure out the clearest way to say something.”
Seif-Naraghi calls it “eye-opening” to realize how much the process of crafting his argument involved convincing himself of its merit.
“In the beginning of the semester, my class was evenly split on which side should win. By the end, we were unanimously in favor of our assigned side,” he says. “That’s a great reminder of the power of persuasive legal writing.”