I'm just about to finish my master's in law with only my dissertation left to handle. I'm being extremely cautious with the language that I'm using when writing as I've previously been told that my writing style is not academic enough for a UK institution. Although I agree with this criticism (and I've been working to improve my use of colloquial expressions) I do think that law papers tend to be dull and much too monotonous because of this constant pressure to make them sound as neutral as possible (while also capable of expressing your distinct opinions). This dullness must also be annoying for the person grading the paper, especially after reading multiple boring and similar dissertations.
I've previously experimented with structure when writing one of my course essays in order to build suspense before unraveling the finding of my research. Judging by the comments (and the grade that I got) the person grading it was really pleased with the final result. This gave me the confidence to be more imaginative when working on my dissertation, but at the same time I do not want to get too carried away.
It is not that I find calling a person enfant terrible to be particularly original, I just think it might lead to the person reading it to crack a smile. Apart from making it a more distinguishable paper it will also be beneficial for my argument, as I will have to spend less time debunking this particular person's theories by drawing the attention to the fact that although they are very popular and frequently quoted, they are widely considered to be too extreme by his peers.
What is your opinion? Where would you draw the line when trying to make a paper more interesting? (note that this question is not about finding creative ways to hide a weak argument)