I am, by nature and by training, verbose. Give me a second cup of coffee and a willing audience, and I will happily turn breakfast into a symposium. What my wife calls “picking a fight before 9 a.m.,” I call “connecting over brunch.” In these morning debates, she does most of the listening. I do most of the analyzing. And when I make what I consider to be an especially sharp point, I like to refine it, rephrase it, and revisit it, just to be sure its brilliance is fully appreciated. If the espresso hits just right, I may even admire, briefly and silently, the good fortune of the person, often my wife, who gets to receive this steady stream of legal reasoning.

Lawyers are built this way. We are trained to see nuance, anticipate counterarguments, and strengthen a position from every angle. Law school rewards thoroughness. Practice rewards preparation. We are taught that if a point is important, it is worth developing. And if it is persuasive, it is worth reinforcing. The problem is that what feels like intellectual engagement to us can feel like repetition to others. What feels like clarification can feel like over-explaining, or worse, man-splaining. And because we are comfortable with words, we sometimes fail to notice when we have shifted from sharpening a point to polishing it long after it has already landed.

This tendency becomes more consequential in the courtroom. Judges are not grading essays. They are managing crowded dockets under significant cognitive strain. Decades of research on cognitive load suggest that people process information less effectively when it is excessive or redundant. In practical terms, that means repetition does not always increase persuasion. In fact, it can decrease it. Judges routinely admonish counsel for overly long filings. Even Justice Antonin Scalia, along with Bryan Garner in Making Your Case, emphasized that clarity and brevity are hallmarks of effective advocacy. There are cautionary examples in federal courts where excessive briefing has drawn sharp criticism from the bench. The message is consistent: if your best argument cannot stand on its own in a concise form, repeating it rarely improves its strength. More often, it signals insecurity or lack of discipline.

The antidote is not silence. It is self-awareness. Know the difference between clarifying and reiterating. Before you elaborate, ask yourself whether you can state your position in one clean, direct sentence. If you cannot, more words will not fix that. If you can, additional words should serve a purpose, not simply reassure you that the point has landed. The most persuasive advocates are not the ones who speak the longest. They are the ones who stop at the right moment.

Here are Three Practical Tips:

• Lead with your conclusion. State your thesis clearly before unpacking it. Audiences, especially judges, appreciate orientation.
• Watch for diminishing returns. If the second version of your point adds nothing new, cut it.
• Invite limits. Ask if further elaboration would be helpful. It signals confidence and respect.
  

Repetition often masquerades as strength. Sometimes it is anxiety in disguise. The real test of persuasive power is whether your argument can stand upright without being propped up five different ways. Even before the second cup of coffee.