The texts I write (and, in general, the texts that are written in law) are of two kinds: “negotiable” texts and texts “of adhesion”. (…) The texts written for “negotiation” have a different content from that which would have resulted if those texts had been written “for adhesion”. (…) Whoever the reader is, I examine the result of the agreement I propose to reach in terms of “degree of consensus”, not in terms of “assenting to an op...

When I write an article, I am trying to transmit not only the information I found through my research, but also my view on that subject, to persuade that I can contribute with an interpretation (in a broad sense) that may brink added value. (…) The process of learning [in the field of style] is a solitary one and, for most of its part, based on the trial-and-error method: every author is responsible to find his or her own models and his ...

I learned that memorials and legal opinions must follow the logic of a rigorous syllogism: major premise – minor premise – conclusion. Plus the obsessive concern for systematisation, the attention to the forest before concern for trees, the right separation of levels and perspectives and, above all, the supreme rule: as many details in as few words.