• Home
  • About Me
  • Disclaimer

The Researching Paralegal

~ Articles and Research for Legal Professionals

The Researching Paralegal

Category Archives: Plain Language

Best Tips To Improve Your Writing.

02 Thursday Jan 2020

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Legal Writing, Persuasive Writing, Plain Language, Propositions and Headings

≈ Comments Off on Best Tips To Improve Your Writing.

Tags

Adam Lamparello, Appellate Advocacy Blog, Legal Writing

Tips to Immediately Improve Your Writing Skills, by Adam Lamparello, Appellate Advocacy Blog

http://bit.ly/2Fcfqwe

An excellent list of key skills to improve your legal writing regardless of your proficiency level. This is one of the best legal writing checklists I have seen. Definitely worth a bookmark. -CCE

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

What’s the Clue to Whom Did What, Where, and Why?

03 Friday Aug 2018

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Bad Legal Writing, Grammar, Legal Writing, Persuasive Writing, Plain Language

≈ Comments Off on What’s the Clue to Whom Did What, Where, and Why?

Tags

Legal Writing, Mark Cooney, Michigan Bar Association, Passive Voice, Plain Language

Give A Clue (A Linguist Whodunit), by Mark Cooney, 97 Mich. B. J. 60-62 (June 2017) 

“This piece first appeared in Professor Cooney’s book, Sketches on Legal Style, published by Carolina Academic Press.”

https://www.michbar.org/file/barjournal/article/documents/pdf4article3146.pdf

In this tongue-in-cheek parody of Hasbro’s classic board game, Clue©, Professor Cooney delightfully explains the importance of using the active voice rather than the passive.

The basic tenet of good legal writing is to put the subject and verb together, place modifiers next to what they modify, and use the active voice. The passive voice causes confusion rather than clarity because it fails to communicate the writer’s intention. There is only one valid use of the passive voice – when the actor is unknown or unimportant.

Enjoy! -CCE

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

The True Test of Good Legal Writing.

30 Saturday Jun 2018

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Legal Writing, Persuasive Writing, Plain Language, Readability

≈ Comments Off on The True Test of Good Legal Writing.

Tags

Hon. Gerald Lebovits, Legal Writing, Michagan Bar Journal, Plain Language Committee

Free at Last from Obscurity: Achieving Clarity, by Hon. Gerald Lebovits, 97 Mich. B. J. 6, 38 (May 2017)

https://www.michbar.org/file/barjournal/article/documents/pdf4article3120.pdf

I love the Plain Language Committee of the Michigan Bar Association. Every one of its articles in the Michigan Bar Journal is a legal writing gem. In this article, Judge Lebovits explains why this is your goal and how to do it:

[T]he hallmark of good legal writing is that an intelligent layperson will understand it on the first read.

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

Law Professor Antonio Gidi’s New Legal Writing Book.

28 Monday May 2018

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Bad Legal Writing, Legal Writing, Persuasive Writing, Plain Language, Readability

≈ Comments Off on Law Professor Antonio Gidi’s New Legal Writing Book.

Tags

Antonio Gidi, Legal Writing Syle, Persuasive Writing

Legal Writing Style, by Antonio Gidi (West 2018), at SSRN.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3157430

Antonio Gidi, law professor at Syracuse University College of Law, recently updated Weihofen’s Legal Writing Style. Professor Gidi is a strong proponent of  concise and persuasive legal writing. A preview of the book is available at the SSRN link above; just click on “Download This Paper.” Plenty for the novice legal writer and good tips for those looking to sharpen their legal writing skills. -CCE

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

“No Passion in the World is Equal to the Passion to Alter Someone Else’s Draft.” H.G. Wells

20 Wednesday Dec 2017

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Bad Legal Writing, Brief Writing, Editing, Legal Writing, Legalese, Persuasive Writing, Plain Language, Punctuation, Readability

≈ Comments Off on “No Passion in the World is Equal to the Passion to Alter Someone Else’s Draft.” H.G. Wells

Tags

Douglas E. Abrams, Editing, Legal Writing, Missouri Bar Journal, SSRN, University of Missouri School of Law

We are the Products of Editing, Douglas E. Abrams, Precedent, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 12-14, Spring 2008; University of Missouri School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2008-18.

Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1138300 

How many of us take the time to proof and edit what we write? I suspect that most, if not all, good legal writers do it. No, I’m not talking about simply running a review of your grammar, style, and punctuation in Microsoft Word. I mean really reading, proofing, and editing what you write.

When you write for the court, what is your goal? To be understood? Of course. To persuade? Absolutely. To do that, you must keep your reader’s attention. Long sentences that take up an entire paragraph, legalese, and unnecessary words are boring – period. Why would anyone want to read a quote takes up an entire page?

Persuasive legal writing is an art. It takes work, and that means editing and polishing until your writing is clear, concise, and logically flows from one point to the next. Your goal, as I’ve mentioned before, is that, by the time your judge finishes reading your brief or other document, that judge is subconsciously nodding in agreement.

As someone who has seen a state supreme court judge literally throw a party’s brief across the room because it was so badly written, I promise that judges will not waste time reading legal gibberish. If a judge finds one side‘s brief difficult to read, how much frustration does it take to put it down and pick up the other side’s well-written brief to get the facts of the case and legal argument? Folks, it doesn’t take much.

Don’t take my word for it. Mr. Abrams’ article does an excellent job. -CCE

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

What Will Ignoring the Court Rules Get You? A Big Fat Benchslap.

08 Tuesday Aug 2017

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Bad Legal Writing, Benchslap, Brief Writing, Editing, Footnotes, Judges, Legal Writing, Motions, Plain Language, Proofreading, Readability

≈ Comments Off on What Will Ignoring the Court Rules Get You? A Big Fat Benchslap.

Tags

Court Rules, Editing, Findlaw, George Khoury, Legal Writing, William P. Statsky

Florida Judge Tosses Improperly Spaced Court Filing, by George Khoury, Esq., Strategist, The Findlaw Law Firm Business Blog  (with hat tip to William P. Statsky)

http://bit.ly/2uP9FyB

Mr. Khoury says that “[h]ell hath no fury like a Florida judge who receives an improperly formatted brief.” You better believe it. Why on earth would you ignore the format requirements in your court’s local rules? Folks, this just isn’t that hard.

The author of this motion for summary judgment thought the court would either ignore or not notice that the motion and supporting brief were spaced 1-1/2 lines rather than double-spaced. And who’s going to notice longer-than-usual footnotes? Really? Any judge or clerk whose job it is to read, read, and then read some more every dad-gum day.

Seriously, do you want to plow through heavy footnotes? Hands? Didn’t think so. Neither does your judge. Why risk alienating the person you are trying to convince? The stakes are too high to cling to a style of writing that sets you up to lose before anyone reads your motion or brief.

There are other, and much more effective ways, to trim a motion and brief. Editing is the key.

  1. Eliminate any unnecessary word.
  2. Remember that subject and verbs go together.
  3. Use short sentences.
  4. Delete all legalese. Yes, all of it. No excuses.
  5. You can always delete “in order.” Try it – it will not change the meaning in your sentence. These are an example of filler words that just take up space.
  6. Stop using phrases such as “brief of the plaintiff.” Write “plaintiff’s brief” instead.
  7. Never, never, never use long block quotations.
  8. Quote from a court opinion only when the court says it better than you can.

A quick search of this blog will give you tons of editing tips. I promise that you can get your point across with fewer words. It is not the number of words you use that count; it is what words you choose and how you say it. -CCE

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

Former FBI Director Comey Acknowledged As Legal Writing Star.

13 Tuesday Jun 2017

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Editing, Legal Writing, Persuasive Writing, Plain Language, Readability

≈ Comments Off on Former FBI Director Comey Acknowledged As Legal Writing Star.

Why Does Comey Get an “A” in Legal Writing for His Written Testimony? by Megan E. Boyd, Lady (Legal) Writer Blog

http://ladylegalwriter.blogspot.com/2017/06/why-does-comey-get-a-in-legal-writing.html

Guest post writer, Kirsten Davis, J.D., Ph.D., and Megan Boyd, the author of the Lady (Legal) Writer Blog, know great legal writing when they see it. Last Thursday, when appearing before the Intelligence Committee, Idaho Senator James Risch described former FBI Director James Comey’s written testimony as “clear,” “concise,” and “as good as it gets.”  You don’t hear that every day. So, what made Comey’s writing deserve such high praise? Enjoy this lesson on excellent legal writing. -CCE

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

The Basics of Legal Writing for Legal Professionals.

04 Sunday Jun 2017

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Editing, Grammar, Legal Argument, Legal Writing, Plain Language, Readability

≈ Comments Off on The Basics of Legal Writing for Legal Professionals.

Tags

Gerald Lebovits, Legal Writing, SSRN, The Legal Writer

The Writing Process for New Lawyers: Getting it Written and Right, by Gerald Lebovits, The Legal Writer, 89 N.Y. St. B.J. 80 (May 2017) (with hat tip to William P. Statsky)

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2967050

Although this article is about the basics of legal writing, even seasoned legal writers will find it useful and instructive. Regardless of how well we think we write, we can always improve.

This article puts an emphasis on focusing on the purpose of your document, organizing your thoughts, considering your reader, researching, and editing. In short, all the basics you need to write well. -CCE

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

Use Plain English Rather Than Medical Jargon.

12 Wednesday Apr 2017

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Legal Writing, Persuasive Writing, Plain Language, Trial Tips and Techniques

≈ Comments Off on Use Plain English Rather Than Medical Jargon.

Tags

David Daly, Dr. Oscar Linares, Gertrude Daly, Michigan Bar Journal, Plain English

Plain English Helps Explain Medical Issues Clearly, A Case Study, by Dr. Oscar Linares, David Daly, and Gertrude Daly, 36 Mich. B J. (Jan. 2017)

http://www.michbar.org/file/barjournal/article/documents/pdf4article3039.pdf

Professionals, like doctors, often speak using medical jargon. Other doctors understand it, but not necessarily everyone else. This is true for anyone who uses technical language specific to their work. But in a legal matter, communication is critical. A good reason to use plain English, isn’t it? -CCE

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

Why We Need Clear Legal Writing in Contracts.

20 Monday Feb 2017

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Bad Legal Writing, Contract Law, Legal Writing, Plain Language

≈ Comments Off on Why We Need Clear Legal Writing in Contracts.

Tags

Aird & Berlis, Contracts, Legal Writing, Plain English, Sherry Altshuler

Sesquipedalianism and an Expatiation Upon Its Antithetical Impact on Interpersonal Communications: Big Words and Why They’re Bad, by Sherry Altshuler, Aird & Berlis, LLP (with hat tip to Louis J. Sirico, Jr., Legal Skills Prof Blog)

http://www.airdberlis.com/Templates/Blog/Entry.aspx?Page=71&ID=11120

This post on using plain English does what good legal writing should. Rather than telling you that big or complicated words are a sure way to lose your reader, it shows you with a wonderful example.  I love “show, don’t tell.” It also provides an excellent list of good legal writing tips. This one is worth a bookmark. -CCE

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

Legal Writing Myths

11 Saturday Feb 2017

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Brief Writing, Citations, Editing, Legal Argument, Legal Writing, Persuasive Writing, Plain Language

≈ Comments Off on Legal Writing Myths

Tags

Judge Gerald Lebovits, Legal Writing, Michigan Bar Journal, Plain English Subcomittee

Legal-Writing Myths, by the Hon. Gerald Lebovits, Plain English Subcommittee Column, 50 Mich. B.J. (February 2017)©2017

https://researchingparalegal.wordpress.com/?p=4848&preview=true

 

Are longer briefs more persuasive? Is it a legal writing faux pas to start a sentence with “and”? Do judges care if you follow Bluebook citation format? Judge Lebovits has some thoughts on these and other legal writing myths to share, some of which may surprise you. -CCE

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

Plain English Legal Writing – Proof Positive That It Works.

12 Monday Dec 2016

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Bad Legal Writing, Editing, Judges, Legal Argument, Legal Writing, Legalese, Persuasive Writing, Plain Language, Readability

≈ Comments Off on Plain English Legal Writing – Proof Positive That It Works.

Tags

Joseph Kimble, Legalese, Michigan Bar Journal, Plain English Column

The Proof is in the Reading, Plain Language Works Best, by Joseph Kimble, 52 Mich. B J. (Oct. 2016)

http://www.michbar.org/file/barjournal/article/documents/pdf4article2972.pdf

Joseph Kimble has long been recognized as one of the top legal writing scholars. In this Plain English column of the Michigan Bar Journal (every Bar Journal should have one!), Professor Kimble offers evidence once again that readers, including judges, prefer plain language and why. -CCE

To help round out this plain-English theme issue of the Bar Journal, I offer the evidence of four studies. These four are among 50 that I collect and summarize in my book Writing for Dollars, Writing to Please: The Case for Plain Language in Business, Government, and Law. Of the 50 studies, 18 involved different kinds of legal documents—lawsuit papers, judicial opinions, statutes, regulations, jury instructions, court forms and notices, and contracts. And they included readers of all sorts—judges, lawyers, administrators, and the general  public. The evidence is overwhelming: readers strongly prefer plain language to legalese, understand it better and faster, are more likely to comply with it, and are more likely to read it to begin with. —JK

Continue reading →

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

The Plain Language Argument Against Using Latin Legal Terms of Art.

30 Sunday Oct 2016

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Bad Legal Writing, Legal Writing, Legalese, Plain Language, Terms of art

≈ Comments Off on The Plain Language Argument Against Using Latin Legal Terms of Art.

Tags

Chadwick C. Busk, Latin, Legal Terms of Art, Legal Writing, Michael Braem, Michigan Bar Journal, Plain Language

Curiouser and Curiouser Excuses for Legal Jargon, by Chadwick C. Busk & Michael Braem, 95 Plain Language, Mich. B.J. 30 (2016)

Click to access pdf4article2967.pdf

Earlier today, I posted about the use of Latin for legal terms of art, although legal writing scholars usually advise against using them. This article addresses that very subject. -CCE

I don’t know the meaning of half those long words, and I don’t believe you  do either.” —Eaglet, Alice in Wonderland (1865), Chapter III

“Some lawyers and academicians attempt to justify legal jargon and “traditional” legal writing—legal writing that’s ‘wordy, unclear, pompous, dull1’  and even “wretched.’2 But legal jargon in contracts burdens all those who must deal with it: the parties to the agreement who try to understand it, lawyers who mistakenly think they must use it, and judges who have to interpret it. Legal jargon often creates ambiguity, and ambiguity invites litigation. Many legalisms have been fodder for courts to puzzle over, including herein, therein, hereby, and thereof; shall; and/or; and best efforts.

However, some academicians, most recently Professor Lori Johnson of the UNLV William S. Boyd School of Law, have modernized old excuses for legal jargon and concocted new ones. Can these arguments withstand a reasoned analysis, or are they merely fanciful declarations from Wonderland?

Continue reading →

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

Another “How To” Really, Really Write Bad Briefs.

24 Monday Oct 2016

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Bad Legal Writing, Brief Writing, Legal Writing, Legalese, Plain Language

≈ Comments Off on Another “How To” Really, Really Write Bad Briefs.

Tags

Brief Writing, Legal Writing, Michigan Bar Journal, Plain English Committee

How to Ruin Your Briefs – Or The Screwtape Lawyers, by Austin J. Hakes, 50 Mich. B. J. (Aug. 2016)

http://www.michbar.org/file/barjournal/article/documents/pdf4article2928.pdf

The author has a well-known new client with an unusual request – write the worst briefs possible. The author offers eight rules to as guidelines to fulfill his client’s wish. This will be interesting! And, because it comes from the Michigan Bar Journal’s Plain English Committee, you know it’s going to be good. -CCE

That’s right— he wants us to write terrible briefs. This surprised me too at first, but then he explained his new litigation strategy: suspecting that it might be more effective to ruin judicial minds than to manipulate them in his favor, he wants to use terrible writing to drive appellate judges totally insane. Writing a bad brief is easy enough, but writing a truly disastrous one—one capable of inducing madness—is a task requiring deliberate effort and careful study. Our greatest challenge may be a lack of helpful reference materials, for although there are several good books on the art of writing well, the craft of writing badly has been suppressed and maligned for far too long. In the hope of invigorating the persecuted art of infuriating prose, I offer this letter. It’s a meager beginning, but if you follow these eight rules to the best of your ability, your writing should be sufficiently misguided and maddening to serve our client well.

Continue reading →

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

Russ Guberman’s Six Editing Tips.

22 Sunday May 2016

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Bad Legal Writing, Editing, Legal Writing, Legalese, Plain Language

≈ Comments Off on Russ Guberman’s Six Editing Tips.

Tags

Legal Writing, Legalese, Russ Guberman

No Thanks: Six More Words and Phrases to Avoid, by Russ Guberman

http://legalwritingpro.com/blog/no-thanks-six-more-words-and-phrases-to-avoid/#comment-91

Small wording changes can liven up your style by speeding up and punching up your prose.

Let’s match wits with some of the world’s best judicial writers below. Or is that ‘with certain of the world’s most illustrious judicial draftspersons infra’?

The Rules of Engagement: If a word or phrase is bolded in the first part of each set, the big guns didn’t write it. For each of those bolded terms, think of a lighter or shorter replacement before you peek below.

Continue reading →

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

Another Legal Writing Honey Pot

08 Sunday May 2016

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Appellate Writing, Legal Argument, Legal Writing, Legalese, Persuasive Writing, Plain Language

≈ Comments Off on Another Legal Writing Honey Pot

Tags

Bryan A. Garner, Legal Writing, The Scribes Journal of Legal Writing, U.S. Supreme Court Justices

Transcripts of Bryan Garner’s Transcripts With Supreme Court Justices On Legal Writing And Advocacy, THE SCRIBES JOURNAL OF LEGAL WRITING©

http://legaltimes.typepad.com/files/garner-transcripts-1.pdf

If you had to pick just one edition of The Scribes Journal of Legal Writing, which would be an incredibly hard thing to do, this is certainly one I would strongly recommend. Bryan Garner’s interviews with Supreme Court Justices on legal writing! Does it get any better than this? If you are a legal writing aficionado, or even if you’re not, you’ll appreciate the wisdom here. -CCE  

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

Plain English and the U.S. Supreme Court.

03 Thursday Mar 2016

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Appellate Law, Legal Writing, Plain Language, Readability, United States Supreme Court

≈ Comments Off on Plain English and the U.S. Supreme Court.

Tags

Plain English, SCOTUS Blog, U.S. Supreme Court

Plain English/Language Made Simple, SCOTUSblog

http://www.scotusblog.com/category/plain-english/

This is our archive of posts in Plain English. You may also be interested in these resources:

Supreme Court Procedure
Glossary of Legal Terms
Biographies of the Justices

Continue reading →

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

Does Legalese Have A Legitimate Purpose?

13 Saturday Feb 2016

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Legal Writing, Legalese, Persuasive Writing, Plain Language, Readability

≈ Comments Off on Does Legalese Have A Legitimate Purpose?

Tags

Brendan Kenny, Lawyerist Blog, Legal Terms of Art, Legal Writing, Legalese

Lawyers, Stop Writing (and Saying) These Things Immediately, by Brendan Kenny, Lawyerist Blog© 2007–2016

http://bit.ly/1PJPILK

Many lawyers are tired of hearing about legalese, and many still haven’t embraced plain language in their own legal writing and speaking. This post won’t try to change their minds. If Bryan Garner’s life work can’t convince lawyers, how can I?

But there is another issue often lost in the plain-language wars: where did all these legalese words come from? The perception on both sides seems to be these words and phrases once served a purpose, but don’t anymore. But what if we discovered that they never served any purpose? . . . .

Continue reading →

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

Plain Language = Good Writing.

28 Saturday Nov 2015

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Bad Legal Writing, Grammar, Legal Writing, Persuasive Writing, Plain Language, Proofreading, Readability

≈ Comments Off on Plain Language = Good Writing.

Tags

Legal Writing, Mark Cooney, Michigan Bar Journal, Plain Language

The Pros Know: Plain Language Is Just Good Writing, by Mark Cooney, 94 Mich. B.J. 54 (Sept. 2015) (with hat tip to William P. Statsky!)

http://www.michbar.org/file/barjournal/article/documents/pdf4article2701.pdf

Is plain language foreign to ‘real’ writers? To the pros, I mean? Would professional writers, editors, and literary agents outside our field scoff at the plain style that this column has long endorsed? Would plain English draw ridicule in those quarters? Too childish? Dumbed down? Illiterate? And would readers of literate magazines, technical journals, or fiction balk at the simplicity, the directness?

This is an easy one: no—on all counts. . . .

Continue reading →

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

Grammar Lessons From The CIA.

25 Wednesday Nov 2015

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Grammar, Legal Writing, Plain Language, Punctuation, Style Manuals

≈ Comments Off on Grammar Lessons From The CIA.

Tags

CIA, Grammar & Punctuation, Mental Floss Inc. © 2012, Nick Greene, Strunk & White, Style guide

11 Grammar Lessons from the Leaked CIA Style Book, by Nick Greene, Mental Floss Inc. © 2012

http://mentalfloss.com/article/57743/11-grammar-lessons-leaked-cia-style-book

In 2014, a leaked copy of the Directorate of Intelligence Style Manual & Writer’s Guide for Intelligence Publications found its way to the Internet. That long title belies what it actually is: A well-written style book for the CIA — the Strunk & White for Spies.

Inside the 181 pages (not including the index) is a terrific guide for normal folks, and not just government sleuths. It still offers some unique advice, however, and you won’t find some of these examples in your copy of the Oxford American Dictionary. . . .

Continue reading →

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

The Effort to Make and Keep Patents Correct and Clear.

08 Sunday Nov 2015

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Bad Legal Writing, Intellectual Property, Legal Writing, Legalese, Patent Law, Plain Language, Readability

≈ Comments Off on The Effort to Make and Keep Patents Correct and Clear.

Tags

Dennis Crouch, Intellectual Property, Michelle K. Lee, PatentlyO Blog, Patents, Plain Language, US Patent and Trademark Office

Director Michelle Lee: Moving toward Patent Clarity, posted by Dennis Crouch, PatentlyO Blog

http://tinyurl.com/q4dvog7

The following is a post from Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the USPTO Michelle K. Lee and was published on the PTO Director’s blog.

Patent quality is central to fulfilling a core mission of the USPTO, which as stated in the Constitution, is to ‘promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts.’ It is critically important that the USPTO issue patents that are both correct and clear. Historically, our primary focus has been on correctness, but the evolving patent landscape has challenged us to increase our focus on clarity.

Patents of the highest quality can help to stimulate and promote efficient licensing, research and development, and future innovation without resorting to needless high-cost court proceedings. Through correctness and clarity, such patents better enable potential users of patented technologies to make informed decisions on how to avoid infringement, whether to seek a license, and/or when to settle or litigate a patent dispute. Patent owners also benefit from having clear notice on the boundaries of their patent rights. After and after successfully reducing the backlog of unexamined patent applications, our agency is redoubling its focus on quality.

We asked for your help on how we can best improve quality—and you responded.

Continue reading →

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

Plain Language Examples – Before and After.

16 Friday Oct 2015

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Bad Legal Writing, Editing, Grammar, Legal Writing, Legalese, Plain Language, Proofreading, Punctuation, Readability

≈ Comments Off on Plain Language Examples – Before and After.

Tags

Editing, Grammar & Punctuation, Legal Writing, Plain Language, Readability

Before-and-After Comparisons, PlainLanguge.gov

http://www.plainlanguage.gov/examples/before_after/index.cfm

There are a number of superior – and free – websites available to anyone who wants to improve his legal writing skills. PlainLaguage.gov is one of them.

I doubt that anyone wants to write poorly. Often, just showing before-and-after examples improve writing skills. One of the most efficient ways I have found when teaching legal writing is to take a bad writing example, identify why it is ineffective or just plain silly, and suggest different ways to fix it.

Here are examples of government regulations, manuals, handbooks, reports, and other publications that show “before and after” examples that use plain language to improve a sentence, paragraph, or document. -CCE

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

Classic Legal Writing Never Goes Out Of Style.

11 Friday Sep 2015

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Bad Legal Writing, Contract Law, Legal Writing, Plain Language, Readability

≈ Comments Off on Classic Legal Writing Never Goes Out Of Style.

Tags

Adams on Contract Drafting, Joe Kimble, Ken Adams, Michigan Bar Journal, Plain Language

30 Years of the Michigan Bar Journal’s “Plain Language” Column, by Ken Adams, Adams on Contract Drafting

http://www.adamsdrafting.com/30-years-of-the-michigan-bar-journals-plain-language-column/

The Michigan Bar Journal’s ‘Plain Language’ column recently celebrated its thirtieth year. Joe Kimble, its longtime editor, wrote this piece marking the event. . . .

Continue reading →

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

Premises Considered – Legalese Or The Way It Should Be Done?

04 Saturday Jul 2015

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Legal Argument, Plain Language, Readability

≈ Comments Off on Premises Considered – Legalese Or The Way It Should Be Done?

Tags

Legal Writing Net Blog, Legalese, Premises Considered, Wayne Scheiss

Wherefore Premises Considered? by Wayne Scheiss, Legal Writing Net Blog

http://www.utexas.edu/law/faculty/wschiess/legalwriting/2005/03/wherefore-premises-considered

 

When I worked as a legal secretary, I typed the archaic phrase “premises considered” so many times in pleadings, orders, brief, and all types of legal documents. No one ever explained what it meant, but the author was certainly upset if it was omitted. The reason for insisting that this phrase be added? It made the document sound more legal.

They were so used to seeing this phrase, although they did not know its meaning, that it simply did not look right without it. This is reason given by most followers of legalese. They cannot explain what it means – it just looks wrong without it. Is that really a sufficient reason to include it? -CCE

Is it okay to eliminate phrases like WHEREFORE PREMISES CONSIDERED and other such verbiage from the prayer in a complaint? And what is the proper substitute?

Yes, it is okay to eliminate these words. In fact, I highly recommend it. . . .

Continue reading →

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

Canada To Start Using Plain Language For Drug Labels.

03 Friday Jul 2015

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Canada, Consumer Law, Plain Language

≈ Comments Off on Canada To Start Using Plain Language For Drug Labels.

Tags

Drug Labels, Health Canada, Michael Mezher, Plain Language, Regulatory Affairs Professionals Society™

Plain Language Labeling Regulations to Take Effect in Canada, by Michael Mezher, Regulatory Affairs Professionals Society™

http://tinyurl.com/qfdk7vh

Health Canada has released a new guidance document intended to clarify new ‘plain language’ labeling requirements before new regulations take effect on 13 June 2015.

Background

In 2013, Canada’s then-Minister of Health Leona Aglukkaq announced the government was launching a new initiative to improve drug safety by making product information easier to understand for consumers. . . .

Continue reading →

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...
← Older posts
Follow The Researching Paralegal on WordPress.com

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Search

Sign In/Register

  • Register
  • Log in
  • Entries feed
  • Comments feed
  • WordPress.com

Categories

Archives

  • March 2022
  • January 2022
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • January 2021
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • October 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • May 2019
  • March 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013

Recent Comments

Eric Voigt on Top 20 Paralegal Blogs, Websit…
profvoigt on Research Guides in Focus – Mun…
Make Your PDF Docume… on Make Your PDF Document Edit-Pr…
madlaw291282999 on Using Hyperbole -Are You Riski…
How to Treat Bad Cli… on Why Do Bad Clients Deserve The…

Recent Comments

Eric Voigt on Top 20 Paralegal Blogs, Websit…
profvoigt on Research Guides in Focus – Mun…
Make Your PDF Docume… on Make Your PDF Document Edit-Pr…
madlaw291282999 on Using Hyperbole -Are You Riski…
How to Treat Bad Cli… on Why Do Bad Clients Deserve The…
  • RSS - Posts
  • RSS - Comments

Blog at WordPress.com.

  • Follow Following
    • The Researching Paralegal
    • Join 455 other followers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • The Researching Paralegal
    • Customize
    • Follow Following
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Report this content
    • View site in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar
 

Loading Comments...
 

You must be logged in to post a comment.

    %d bloggers like this: