This dissertation considers the language socialization of law students. One message that the law students encounter is that legal Swedish is an entirely new language. The main aim is to investigate what linguistic norms are conveyed to the students through the teachers’ comments on the students’ texts and through various forms of writing instructions. The material consists of student texts with teacher comments and documentation on various phases of instruction with a focus on writing. Teacher comments on texts written during the first year of the law programme are analyzed and categorized. The analysis stems from two models. The first model is based on different text levels, like formal conventions of writing, sentence construction, text structure, word choice and style, and content. The second model distinguishes different linguistic norms based on three layers: The first layer consists of written language norms in general language practice, the second of academic language norms and the third of norms that are specific to the use of legal language. The results show that word choice and style is the most common category for the teachers’ comments in the first term of the law programme and content is the most common in the second term (with word choice and style the second most common). Formal conventions of writing, sentence structure and different types of grammatical constructions are some of the things the teachers criticize. Surprisingly few of the teachers’ comments concern more overarching aspects such as text structure or the aim and genre of the text. Comments are made on local features in the text, but rarely on more global features. The teaching practice that the writing of law students belongs to entails, among other things, that the students’ texts are assessed anonymously for the sake of fairness. This means that there is not much opportunity for a student to discuss the text with the teacher who commented on and assessed it. The construction of the teachers’ text comments is particularly important when dialogue between student and teacher on the text draft and final version is not an integral part of instruction. The teachers’ written comments are usually brief and do not allow much space for a consideration of linguistic norms and text patterns, which reduces the opportunities for the teachers and the law programme to contribute to a deeper linguistic awareness in the law students.