THE LEGAL WRITING
CORNER
INTRODUCING Professor Bethany Gullman
By Jennifer Cook and Denitsa Mavrova Heinrich
This fall we welcomed our new class of students at the University of North Dakota( UND) School of Law. We also extended a warm welcome to a new faculty member— Professor Bethany Gullman. Professor Gullman teaches Lawyering Skills and brings a dynamic blend of experience into the classroom. Before joining our faculty, she taught Fundamentals of Lawyering at The George Washington University Law School and worked in both a large law firm and for the federal government. With nearly eight years of practice experience and a teaching portfolio that spans high school to adult learners, she is passionate about helping students lead with judgment in an AI-augmented legal world. Her research interests include lawyering skills pedagogy and visual rhetoric.
We recently sat down with Professor Gullman to talk about legal writing— her passion for teaching it and her thoughts on some hotly debated grammar topics. Here are the details of our conversation with her.
How long have you taught legal writing and how did you get into it? It’ s hard to believe that 2025-2026 will be my fourth year teaching legal writing in a full-time capacity. I got into teaching legal writing in part because I was a writing fellow in the law school writing center and a teaching assistant for a legal writing class during law school.
Why legal writing? What excites you about teaching the subject? My 1L legal writing class gave me tools I’ ve used in every legal role I’ ve held since then, whether I was drafting memos, arguing before a judge, or explaining risks to a client. I love that the subject equips students with skills they’ ll hone throughout their careers, no matter where they land. Legal writing class is also now an important place where we grapple with when and how to use generative AI tools in legal writing.
What do students see as the most rewarding aspect of legal writing? How about the most challenging one? There’ s something powerful about watching students use legal writing and speaking to amplify ideas that matter to them, especially as we transition to persuasive analysis during the spring of 1L year. It’ s a pivotal and rewarding moment in students’ journeys as legal thinkers and advocates.
One of the most challenging things about legal analysis is giving the client as much certainty as possible when the law and facts are not
Jennifer Cook and Denitsa Mavrova Heinrich are faculty members at the University of North Dakota School of Law. always clear or fully known. Building this comfort with ethical leadership in the midst of ambiguity is one of the most important roles lawyers have.
What is the most essential legal writing skill you hope students in your class carry with them in their legal careers? I want students to leave my class knowing they’ re the quarterback of the legal analysis process. They’ re not finding law and collecting it in a document. They are solving a client’ s legal problem.
Biggest pet peeve when it comes to legal writing? My pet peeves are mostly directed at word processor limitations. For example, I dream of Microsoft Word one day allowing a comment bubble to be placed on the text of a footnote.
QUICK-FIRE QUESTIONS:
One or two spaces after a period? Do you have a typewriter sitting in front of you right now? No? Then the correct answer is unequivocally one.
The Oxford comma – yes or no? I’ m not rigid about the Oxford comma in memo writing. Use it or don’ t, but be consistent throughout the document. In contrast, drafting statutes or contracts carries higher stakes, where a single punctuation mark can shape rights, responsibilities, and even financial outcomes.
Starting a sentence with a conjunction? It’ s hard to argue that this is never allowed when Shakespeare wrote in the 1500s,“ But soft! What light through yonder window breaks?” William Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet, act 2, sc. 2.
Ending a sentence with a preposition? I’ m from the Midwest, so I’ ve said,“ Do you want to come with?” plenty of times. That sentence is probably not memo-worthy, but I’ d prefer a sentence that ends in a preposition over one twisted into unreadable form to avoid it. Clarity wins.
Using contractions in legal documents? I’ m not anti-contraction in general, but in formal legal writing, I steer students away from them. Some readers might get hung up on a“ can’ t” or“ won’ t” and miss the point of the argument. Better to keep it clean and distraction-free.
Using emojis in e-mails? Emojis can be fun and expressive, but I encourage students to think carefully about their audience. In legal writing, especially formal analysis, words tend to be clearer and less open to misinterpretation than symbols.
Please join us in welcoming Professor Gullman to UND School of Law!
28 THE GAVEL