The point is to show that a text never says just one thing, as we were taught in our law schools, in the fi rst year, that meaning is something that is constructed, that the very texts we are reading and under whose power we live are and always have been battlefields, that behind them there are long histories of battles and conflicts, briefly, that legal interpretation is produced in a „field of pain and death”.

In my research activity, I have started, lately, to write only when I am really interested on a topic or when I believe that I have something to say about a certain issue. (…) (thus) I write only when I can answer, in advance, to three questions: What do I mean with what I write? What is the issue I have previously identified? and What answer do I have to that issue?

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 write not only about law but in writing about law I also write about myself (a self who knows that in writing about law she also writes about herself). As such, my text will almost always be doubly marked by identity. Keywords:

For the most part, added value comes from a new perspective, most often identifiable in other systems of law or even in other fi elds of study. However much we might wish otherwise, it is exceptionally rare that we can claim paternity over a question of law. Almost always, in its substance, the researched problem will have been formulated before, perhaps in other words, in other times, in a different place or with a different starting point. C...

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.

Writing is easy. What’s actually difficult is to prepare for it. This preliminary stage consists, in fact, in reading. If you don’t have the time to read, you will not have the time – and more importantly, the tools – to write. One’s writing style is the reflection of one’s readings. The power of literature (legal, but especially non-legal) is slowly leaving its mark on us and, over time, stimulates us to write better.