However, I must say it: I don't think this is good writing.
Writing is like design. It can only be meaningfully called "good" when it achieves a purpose. What is the purpose of this article? It seems to be "to help people (lawyers in particular) to write better".
Does it do that? Well, it's got some tips about writing better, but they are generally hidden underneath the beautiful sentences. Let's take, as an example, one of the clearer paragraphs:
In advocacy, good writing will reflect muscularity, pulling a reader from first to last by force of logical inevitability. This style requires a firm grasp of subject. It requires solid, understated control so as to convey a feel of assured confidence. And it avoids key flaws: it does not strain, or vaunt, or table-pound, or attack the person. It is professional. It has class. It works like a powerful engine under the hood: it does not show itself, but anyone who hears that quiet hum will immediately sense its power. Done right, it projects quintessential vigor: it races along and even leaps off the page on the strength of its own power alone.
That's all very true, but I'm not entirely sure it will help someone who doesn't already understand this point. It is not actionable advice for people who don't already know how to do it.
This article would serve its purpose better if it not only described what good writing is, but also how to achieve it, and if it did so in a way that makes it easier for the reader to extract the information out of it (at the moment, the only way to get the information out of this article is to read through every single sentence, and evaluate each of them to see if it actually brings some new insight).
That said, the prose is beautiful. But this article is like a beautiful design that looks brilliant but isn't functional (either that, or I haven't figured out the purpose of this article).