ABSTRACT
This chapter aims to contest a thesis posed by a particular strand of context-rich scholarship branded applied legal storytelling. It discusses the analysis with inspecting a judicial hypothetical, a judge-made tool aimed to test the boundaries of a proposed ruling. The chapter demonstrates that voices briefs are not only redundant in court proceedings but also outright detrimental to judicial legitimacy. The context-rich departure goes beyond strictly legal reasons in pursuit of a justiciable outcome. It was famously illuminated by American legal realism, which proclaimed that judges regularly abandon the formalist framework in favour of policies and non-legal considerations. The likelihood of high elaboration increases proportionately to the subjects’ motivation and ability. As the likelihood of making a lasting impact on the internal narratives of the judiciary is uncertain at best, applied legal storytelling assigns an alternative role to voices briefs: they are to continue a tradition of democratic input into the workings of the court.
