Wordiness in Legal Writing

Admittedly, it is difficult to completely remove clichés from writing. Don`t overdo it. You can bet a judge won`t think your briefing is the best since sliced bread if you don`t take the time to think outside the box. In addition to the Latin and archaic terms mentioned in the table above, here are some examples of legal language to be eliminated in treaties: Eloquence, like legal language, weakens writing by adding unnecessary length and diluting analysis. Eloquence occurs when writers use the passive voice, double negatives, unnecessary adverbs, heavy formulations of prepositions, and superfluous sentences. “Legal jargon” refers to Latin terms, archaic words like “so far,” and redundant phrases like “null and void.” To paraphrase Justice Potter Stewart, we know the legal language when we see it (or at least we should). 3) We are busy, so we don`t have much time to devote ourselves to editing, to create conciseness. One of the most famous quotes about brevity is: “The letter I wrote today is longer than usual because I didn`t have time to shorten it.” [iv] Editing for brevity takes time – time we often think we can`t waste. Fortunately, there are several ways to quickly and efficiently check the conciseness of our writing. In what follows, I propose three concrete proposals. Many of the clarity strategies I`ve discussed in previous articles will also lead to conciseness (bringing topics and verbs together, using the active voice rather than passive, avoiding nominalizations, and paraphrasing quotes, for example). Here, I decided to focus on three additional strategies aimed directly at countering eloquence. Want to get a historical perspective on why legal writing has always been so wordy and convoluted? This blog offers the conventional theory that word choice results from the Norman conquest of England, when lawyers apparently felt the need to use both English and French words in legal documents.

This blog from The Economist explains the problem of frontloading a sentence when it comes to complex legal concepts. The blog focuses on a key issue in legal writing: that the concepts you write about are so complex that you need to write simply, directly, and simply to make it easier for the reader to understand. Adding complexity to your letter – legal German – exponentially increases the chances that the parties (or the judge) will miss your point. Eliminate prepositional expression strings such as “the” or “von the”. Replace the prepositional sentence with an apostrophe. Unnecessary words waste your audience`s time. Good writing is like a conversation. Leave out information that the public doesn`t need to know. This can be difficult as a subject matter expert, so it`s important for someone to look at the information from the public`s perspective. This article identifies some of the most common wording pitfalls in legal documents, shows how to avoid these missteps, and explains why it boosts copywriting and reputation. When it comes to transactional practice, contracts are usually full of legal language. But legal language obscures important points and makes contracts impenetrable for non-lawyers – and even lawyers.

The modern trend is to write plain-text contracts (a topic for another day), so relying on outdated wording in a contract may indicate that you don`t fit the legal realm.1 Here are some examples of legal language that could be removed from court records: Litigants, in particular, should avoid using legal language in pleadings and pleadings for several reasons. If you work within the confines of pages, legal language can waste valuable space on superfluous wording. The best lawyers avoid legal language, so writing in plain English conveys your credibility in court. Perhaps more importantly, you want a busy judge to focus on the flesh of your reasoning and not be distracted by fat. Professor Garner gives you the keys to making the most of your writing skills – in letters, memos, briefings, and more. The seminar covers five essential skills for persuasive writing: (1) Eliminate “throat cleansing” phrases. These are introductory sentences that are “mere preludes to the subject”[v] and they usually add little or nothing to the sentences they precede. They often fall into the “It`s ____ pattern Several legal writing manuals contain good lists of `throat clarifiers`. [vi] These deep-seated habits make it very difficult for legal writers – especially beginners – to be concise. To make matters worse, much of what lawyers regularly read – court opinions, briefs from other parties, etc.

– is written by people with the same deep-seated habits, so our retail trend keeps growing. Bryan Garner`s April 2014 ABA Journal article provides a good list of unnecessary phrases. Garner recommends “removing words like `here` from legal documents. In addition, lawyers can eliminate amplifiers such as “really,” “extreme,” and “obviously” from their writing, as well as the following sentence openings: The Purdue University OWL (Online Writing Lab) has exercises with corrected ones to eliminate eloquence. The OWL is a comprehensive online writing resource. An easy starting point for editing is to find and eliminate “there is” and “it`s” from your sentences. These sentences add meaningless stuffed animals to the most important point in a sentence – the beginning – and often signal the passive and nominalizations. This blog suggests ways to streamline your writing by eliminating “it exists” and “it is” (or the past) or phrases like “given the fact that” or “given the fact that”. Verbose and dense construction is one of the biggest problems in government writing. Nothing is more confusing to the user than long and complex sentences that contain multiple sentences and clauses. Unnecessary words come in all shapes and sizes, and it is difficult to classify them into different categories.

To solve the problem, become more critical of your own writing and ask yourself if you need every word. Challenge every word – do you need it? (3) Concise writing is more powerful. Even if there are no page or word limits, conciseness is desirable because it makes our writing more powerful. Think of some of the most successful advertising slogans: “Do it.” “Do it however you want.” “You are in good hands.” These slogans work because their words have it in them and because they are easy to remember because of their sharpness. One final note on legal language: some lawyers believe that clients are impressed by generously sprinkling his letter with terms such as “so far” and “case pending.” On the contrary, most demanding clients now expect their lawyer to use clear and direct language. A good lawyer demonstrates her worth not by her bombast, but by clear diction and persuasive analysis. Ginette Chapman is a legal writer who provides www.legaledits.com services to lawyers through her website. During her 15 years as a Colorado attorney, she worked for the federal government, a law firm, and the courts, including as an employee of Judge Gregory J. Hobbs Jr.

Most recently, she worked in gastronomy as an in-house lawyer – ginette.chapman@gmail.com, (303) 330-9251. Coordinating Editor: John Campbell, jcampbell@law.du.edu. (2) Concise drafting is often necessary. Many courts impose page or word restrictions on the documents we submit. Brevity keeps us within those limits. If we do not, we risk sanctions; Therefore, “not being concise may constitute legal misconduct.” [i] (2) Eliminate long sentences (don`t use three or four words if one word is enough). Idioms such as in the case of this reference, nowadays and due to the fact that are simply part of many lexicons of lawyers.