![wordrake software wordrake software](https://www.wordrake.com/hubfs/Checklist_10%20Strategies%20for%20Effective%20Proofreading%20and%20Editing%20(Card).png)
"It didn't hurt" might not be worth WordRake's $129 to $199 cost, but you're welcome to test it out for free and decide on your own. We're not sure if WordRake made us or Scalia a better writer. We did the same to this post prior to publication and found the suggestions helpful - so long as you take the time to actively review them if you simply give them all a green light, the meaning of your words could be unintentionally altered.
#Wordrake software trial
We ran the dissent through a trial version of WordRake as well and found that most of the changes made the writing slightly tighter, cutting down on wordier bits and only occasionally making suggestions that didn't seem to work. As Needham writes, "When WordRake chewed through Scalia's Romer dissent, it desperately wanted Scalia to stop saying 'sort of.'" That's not bad advice, but not fitting to how Scalia used the phrase, which was to discuss the "sort of 'animus' at issue," not to say the Constitution "sort of" allowed anti-gay legislation. Was WordRake able to improve Scalia's writing? Maybe, but not in a way that left its content wholly intact. Simply compose in Microsoft Word or Outlook, hit the 'RAKE' button, and in seconds WordRake suggests edits for tighter, more effective writing. It helps you edit quickly, communicate clearly, write concisely, and eliminate useless words.
![wordrake software wordrake software](https://www.wordrake.com/hubfs/Slide9.png)
#Wordrake software software
(Bigotry? States' rights? The law as tool for moral disapprobation?) It Doesn't Hurt. WordRake editing software is the editor you always wished you had to review your writing before others see it. Scalia's dissent was a long, impassioned screed, a long defense of. In case you forgot, Romer is a landmark gay rights case in which the Court ruled that animus towards a group alone is not rationally related to legitimate state interests and therefore such laws cannot withstand even the least demanding levels of scrutiny. Thread starter DrZero Start date Yesterday at 3:16 AM D. To test WordRake out, Needham tried it out on a series of documents, including the late Justice Scalia's dissent in Romer v. It was created by a lawyer and operates like Word's built-in review functions, but much more sophisticated. WordRake is an add-on for Microsoft Outlook that proofreads your writing and suggests changes. RECENTLY ATTENDED ABA TECHSHOW 2013 with the mission of trolling the exposition hall. Lawyerist's Lisa Needham recently reviewed one such robotic copy editor, WordRake, and the results were. WordRake, the First Editing Software for. In fact, there are even a few such programs devoted specifically to legal writing. When it comes to a little editorial help, you can rely on your handy copy of Garner's Elements of Legal Style, your built-in spelling and grammar checker, or any of the many automated proofreading programs out in the market. The user selects a block of text and clicks the Rake button. And there's a bevy of automated editing and proofreading software out there that promises to improve your writing with the click of a button. WordRake is editing software that functions as an extension for Microsoft Word and Outlook. It should be better, though: clear, accessible, and sometimes even enjoyable to read.
![wordrake software wordrake software](https://www.wordrake.com/hubfs/WordRake%20for%20Outlook%20Thumbnail.png)
But we're not poets here, and legal writing doesn't have to be (and probably shouldn't be) best-seller worthy.