• Home
  • About Me
  • Disclaimer

The Researching Paralegal

~ Articles and Research for Legal Professionals

The Researching Paralegal

Tag Archives: Plain Language

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 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...

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...

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...

Plain Language Honey Pot.

08 Wednesday Jul 2015

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Brief Writing, Editing, Fonts, Jury Instructions, Legal Writing, Legalese, Precedent, Readability

≈ Comments Off on Plain Language Honey Pot.

Tags

Judge Mark P. Painter, Legal Writing, Plain Language, PlainLanguage.gov

Legal Examples, PlainLanguage.gov

http://www.plainlanguage.gov/examples/legal/

I have noticed that posts here on legal writing, legalese, and plain language are always popular. Here is a treat for you plain language lovers – a mixed bag of excellent plain language examples of legal writing. They include Pennsylvania’s statute requiring plain language for contracts, California’s plain language jury instructions, Martin Cutt’s classic, Lucid Law, and my personal favorites – two fantastic articles by Judge Mark P. Painter.

Once you click on this link and go to the website, you will see buttons that will take you to other plain language examples, resources, and tips. Enjoy! -CCE

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...

Mrs. Finklebean And Whether To Use “And” and “But” At Beginning Of Sentences.

04 Thursday Dec 2014

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

≈ Comments Off on Mrs. Finklebean And Whether To Use “And” and “But” At Beginning Of Sentences.

Tags

Legal Writing, Mark Cooney, Michigan Bar Journal, Mrs. Finklebean, Plain Language

A Letter to Mrs. Finklebean, by Mark Cooney, Plain Language, 93 Mich. B. J. 60 (August 2014)

www.michbar.org/journal/pdf/pdf4article2413.pdf

Dear Mrs. Finklebean,
I was a student in your fourth-grade class
way back, jeez, almost 30 years ago—long
before my silk-stocking days as a partner at
a prestigious law firm. If I stand out in your
memory, it’s probably because of my regrettable
decision to put a wriggling gob of earthworms
into your coat pocket after recess
one day. I swear it wasn’t my idea; Butch
Dugan threatened to give me an atomic
wedgie unless I did it. Once again, I’m truly
sorry for that little stunt.

But I haven’t written you after all these
years to renew my childhood apologies, Mrs.
Finklebean. In fact, if I may be so bold, I’ve
written because you owe me an apology—
one that’s long overdue. Let me explain. . . .

 

 

Share this:

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

Like this:

Like Loading...

Whatever Can Be Misunderstood, Will Be.

15 Saturday Nov 2014

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

≈ Comments Off on Whatever Can Be Misunderstood, Will Be.

Tags

Albert Einstein, Legal Writing, Legalese, Paul Luvera, Plain Language, Plaintiff Trial Lawyer Tips Blog

This Should Be Every Trial Lawyer’s Mantra, by Paul Luvera, Plaintiff Trial Lawyer Tips Blog

http://tinyurl.com/myfv5oo

One of my favorite quotations! Mr. Luvera hit the nail on the head, not only for trial presentations, but for any type of writing regardless of your profession. Some people think that their writing should be complex, with lots of Latin, jargon, and legalese. Technical writers often use complicated terms and words understood (barely) by people who work in their industry, but no one else.

Most readers skim or skip the long, single-space block quotations often found in legal briefs. Wouldn’t you? Imagine having to slog through poorly written briefs day after day? Or imagine that you are a juror who must decipher poorly written jury instructions. If what you say is that important, why risk losing the reader even for a moment?

Just like Murphy’s Law, in writing, whatever can be misunderstood, will be. What is the point of writing anything if you are not easily understood? No, you are not “dumbing down” your writing or treating the reader like a child. You are communicating and facilitating your goal — to be understood. -CCE

enstein

Share this:

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

Like this:

Like Loading...

Collection of Judges’ Best Advice On Legal Writing.

08 Saturday Nov 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, Appellate Law, Appellate Writing, Bad Legal Writing, District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals, Editing, Legal Argument, Legal Writing, Legalese, Oregon Supreme Court, Plain Language, Readability, Texas Supreme Court, United States Supreme Court, Wisconsin Supreme Court

≈ Comments Off on Collection of Judges’ Best Advice On Legal Writing.

Tags

Appellate Brief Writing, Bryan A. Garner, Joseph Kimble, Legal Writing, Legalese, Michigan Bar Association, Plain Language

Judges on Effective Writing: The Importance of Plain Language, by Bryan A. Garner, Vol 84 Mich. B. J. 44 (February 2005)

http://tinyurl.com/kk6trum

Each quote here is a pearl of wisdom – classical and timeless. Look no further to find the heart and soul of effective legal writing. Click on the hyperlink to find the footnotes for each quotation. -CCE

I trust that, after more than 20 years, some of the Plain Language columns are worth reprinting. This one appeared in March 1994. As I noted then, the survey that Mr. Garner mentions in his introduction is the same one that we first did in Michigan, with very similar results. See the October 1987 and May 1990 columns. The judges are identified by their judicial positions when they make their remarks. —JK (Joseph Kimble)

Lawyers are notoriously poor at gauging what judges prefer in legal writing. Too many of us believe, for example, that judges expect us to use legalese. In 1991, when the Texas Plain-Language Committee surveyed all the state district and appellate judges in Texas, we found that more than 80 percent prefer plain language (Plaintiff complains of Defendant and says) over legalese (Now comes the Plaintiff, by and through his attorneys of record, Darrow and Holmes, and for his Original Petition in this cause would respectfully show unto the Court the following). Indeed, several judges responded to the survey with a plea that we stamp out legalese once and for all.

The results of that survey surprised many Texas litigators—and many changed the form of their court papers. But many more have persisted in the old, legalistic style—perhaps out of a fondness akin to what some people feel for the language of the King James Version of the Bible. Judge Lynn Hughes of Houston speaks directly to those litigators: ‘Anyone who thinks Comes now the Plaintiff is anything like the King James Version has no sense of poetry.’

Literary tastes may differ, of course, but it’s worth knowing what judges say—and have been saying for a long time—about the language we lawyers use. Following are some choice quotations I’ve recently collected. —Bryan A. Garner

Judicial Diagnoses

‘Lawyers spend a great deal of their time shoveling smoke.’ Hon. Oliver Wendell Holmes1, U.S. Supreme Court

‘[Too many lawyers believe that] it is essential to legal English that one write as pompously as possible, using words and phrases that have long since disappeared from normal English discourse.’ Hon. Antonin Scalia2 , U.S. Supreme Court

‘The reason legal writing has gotten to such a low point is that we have had very bad teachers—judges who wrote years ago and wrote badly. We learned bad habits from them and their opinions in law school.’
Hon. William Bablitch3, Supreme Court of Wisconsin

Stick to the Mother Tongue

‘[The advocate] will stock the arsenal of his mind with tested dialectical weapons. He will master the short Saxon word that pierces the mind like a spear and the simple figure that lights the understanding. He will never drive the judge to his dictionary. He will rejoice in the strength of the mother tongue as found in the King James version of the Bible, and in the power of the terse and flashing phrase of a Kipling or a Churchill.’  Hon. Robert H. Jackson4, U.S. Supreme Court

‘[A]void as much as possible stilted legal language, the thereins, thereofs, whereinbefores, hereinafters, and what-have-yous. Use English wherever you can to express the idea as well and as concisely as in law or Latin. A healthy respect for the robust Anglo-Saxon appeals more than does the Latin, whether or not it is Anglicized. The home-grown product in this case is better than the imported, not to say smuggled, one.’ Hon. Wiley B. Rutledge5, U.S. Supreme Court

‘Write so that you’re understood. English is a hard language to learn, but it’s an easy language to communicate in. There’s no reason to put Latin in your brief.’ Hon. Craig T. Enoch6, Fifth Court of Appeals, Dallas

‘Don’t use legalese. It causes you to put your contentions in stale ways.’ Hon. Thomas Gibbs Gee7, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, 1974-91

‘Legalese is an impediment to clear, logical thinking.’ Hon. F. Lee Duggan8, First Court of Appeals, Houston

‘It’s easier for a judge when you’re using common usage. Judges are only human, after all.’ Hon. Carolyn Wright9, Family District Court, Dallas

Simplify, Simplify!

‘For a hundred years, good lawyers have been writing without all the garbage and in a simple, direct style.’ Hon. Lynn N. Hughes10. U.S. District Court, Houston

‘A lawyer should write the brief at a level a 12th grader could understand. That’s a good rule of thumb. It also aids the writer. Working hard to make a brief simple is extremely rewarding because it helps a lawyer to understand the issue. At the same time, it scores points with the court.’ Hon. William Bablitch11, Supreme Court of Wisconsin

‘When a judge finds a brief which sets up from twelve to twenty or thirty issues or ‘points’ or ‘assignments of error,’ he begins to look for the two or three, perhaps the one, of controlling force. Somebody has got lost in the underbrush and the judge has to get him—or the other fellow—out. That kind of brief may be labeled the ‘obfuscating’ type. It is distinctly not the kind to use if the attorney wishes calm, temperate, dispassionate reason to emanate from the cloister. I strongly advise against use of this type of brief, consciously or unconsciously. Though this fault has been called over-analysis, it is really a type of under-analysis.’ Hon. Wiley B. Rutledge12, U.S. Supreme Court

‘The key is to make the brief easy for the judge to follow.’ Hon. Lloyd Doggett13, Supreme Court of Texas

Cut the Verbiage

‘You want your brief to be as readable as possible . . . . If I pick up a brief of 49 and a half pages, it has a little less credibility than one that succinctly argues its points in 25 pages . . . . There’s nothing better to read than a well-written brief from a really good lawyer.’ Hon. Jerry E. Smith14, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

‘Eye fatigue and irritability set in well before page 50.’ Hon. Patricia M. Wald15, U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

‘A brief should manifest conviction . . . . [That] is virtually impossible . . . if it contains an excessive number of quotations or is larded with numerous citations to the authorities. Short quotations sometimes clinch a point, but long ones fail in that objective.’ Hon. George Rossman16. Supreme Court of Oregon

‘Start in the very first sentence with the problem in this case. Put it right up front. Start early. Don’t bury it under a lot of verbiage and preliminaries.’ Hon. Nathan L. Hecht17, Supreme Court of Texas

Does Style Matter?

‘Style must be regarded as one of the principal tools of the judiciary and it thus deserves detailed attention and repeated emphasis.’ Hon. Griffin B. Bell18, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

‘Lawyers are excused from the necessity of interesting their readers, and all too often—let’s face the evidence—they take advantage of this enviable exemption.’ Hon. Jerome Frank19, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

‘Is good writing rewarded? I used to think it doesn’t matter much, in comparison with legal authority, justice, and the like. Now I know better: Good writing is rewarded so automatically that you don’t even think about it.’ Hon. Murry Cohen20, Fourteenth Court of Appeals, Houston

Bryan A. Garner (bagarner@att.net), president of Dallas-based LawProse, Inc. (www.lawprose.org), is the author of many books on writing, including Legal Writing in Plain English (2001) and The Elements of Legal Style (2d ed. 2002). He is also editor in chief of all current editions of Black’s Law Dictionary. He teaches at Southern Methodist University School of Law.

Share this:

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

Like this:

Like Loading...

Does The Law Really Require Legalese?

16 Thursday Oct 2014

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

≈ Comments Off on Does The Law Really Require Legalese?

Tags

Joseph Kimble, Legal Writing, Legal Writing Editor Blog, Legalese, Plain Language

You Think the Law Requires Legalese?, by Joseph Kimble, Legal Writing Editor Blog

http://legalwritingeditor.com/2013/10/21/think-law-requires-legalese/

A classic. -CCE

There’s a sign that, in some configuration, appears on every gas pump in Michigan, although most drivers probably don’t even notice it anymore. You can see one in the photo to the right.

Let’s put aside the all-capitals, which are notoriously hard to read. And never mind that the first and second items aren’t exactly parallel. (‘Stop engine. Don’t smoke.’) The trouble — linguistically, stylistically, semantically — shows up in the third item.

Look at that little sentence. We get an explicit subject, A person, which really throws off the parallelism. The lawyer’s shall — now corrupted and ambiguous from misuse — does not belong even in statutes or regulations, let alone on a gas pump. Remain in attendance? Oh, please. The first of is unnecessary. And for the big comedic finish, we’re seemingly told that the nozzle must be able to see the person.

The fix isn’t hard: ‘You must stay outside your vehicle and be able to see the nozzle.’ Or for parallelism with the first two items: ‘Stay outside your vehicle, and make sure you can see the nozzle.’

Now, are people likely to misunderstand the pump version? No. Is this the worst public writing on the planet? Obviously not. But by tracing this mundane example to its source, anyone who cares about clarity in legal and official documents can learn a set of critical lessons. . . .

 

Share this:

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

Like this:

Like Loading...

10 Top Law-Related TED Videos.

20 Sunday Jul 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Bad Legal Writing, Computer Forensics, Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, Computer Virus, Copyright, Criminal Law, Cybersecurity, Digital Millenium Copyright Act, Discovery, Encryption, Evidence, Finance and Banking Law, Fraud, Google, Government, Identity Theft, Intellectual Property, Law Office Management, Legal Technology, Legal Writing, Legalese, Malware, Management, Patent Law, PC Computers, Plain Language, Presentations, Search Engines, Trial Tips and Techniques, Trojans, Video

≈ Comments Off on 10 Top Law-Related TED Videos.

Tags

Copyright, Crime, Eyewitness, Fashion Industry, Government, Internet, Legal Productivity Blog, Legalese, Patent Troll, Plain Language, TED, Tim Baran

Top 10 Legal TED Talks, by Tim Baran, Legal Productivity Blog

http://www.legalproductivity.com/op-ed/top-10-legal-ted-talks/

Have you heard of TED? It began in 1984 as a conference and now covers a wide range of topics in more than 100 languages.  Think of it as a massive brain trust that shares great ideas and information.

Each of the law-related TED talks listed in this article are worthwhile on their own: (1) four ways to fix a broken legal system; (2) eliminate legalese by using plain English; (3) how to beat a patent troll; (4) how the Internet will change government; (5) laws that choke creativity; (6) copyright law; (7) why eyewitnesses get it wrong; (8) how technology could make crime worse; (9) the Internet and anonymity online; and (10) how great leaders inspire. -CCE

Share this:

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

Like this:

Like Loading...

Classic Writing Tips From C.S. Lewis.

01 Tuesday Jul 2014

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

≈ Comments Off on Classic Writing Tips From C.S. Lewis.

Tags

C.S. Lewis, Editing, Ethos3, Grammar and Punctuation, Legal Writing, Plain Language, Readability, Scott Schwertly

5 Writing Tips by C.S. Lewis, the Purveyor of Childhood, by Scott Schwertly, the Founder and CEO of Ethos3

http://tinyurl.com/qzawhfs

It’s pretty likely that C.S. Lewis brought you a little bit of happiness when you were a child. As author of the ‘Chronicles of Naria’ series, C.S. Lewis created one of the most beloved children series of all time. As a result, he got loads of fan mail from his biggest fans: children. And being the nice purveyor of childhood glee that he was, he managed to respond to many of the letters, including one from Joan Lancaster, in which he included several tips on writing. Let’s see what we can learn about presentations from his poignant advice.

1. Always try to use the language so as to make quite clear what you mean and make sure your sentence couldn’t mean anything else.

This is great advice for the presenter as our job is disseminate information as clearly and simply as possible. In order to do so, use language that tells the audience what they need to know in the simplest way possible. Say what you want to say as simply as possible. Don’t overcomplicate your language for no reason.

2. Always prefer the plain direct word to the long, vague one. Don’t implement promises, but keep them.

This goes hand in hand with Lewis’s previous nugget of advice. Use plain, direct language in your presentation. You won’t sound smarter by using a ten-dollar word when a five-dollar word will do. Rather, you might come across as pretentious. Don’t alienate your audience with obscure language. Be as direct as possible.

3. Never use abstract nouns when concrete ones will do. If you mean ‘More people died’ don’t say ‘Mortality rose.’

Mr. Lewis is adamant about the importance of clear, direct language, isn’t he? Minimize abstraction as much as possible with the language you use. Be as clear and concrete as possible.

4. In writing. Don’t use adjectives which merely tell us how you want us to feel about the thing you are describing. I mean, instead of telling us a thing was ‘terrible,’ describe it so that we’ll be terrified. Don’t say it was ‘delightful’; make us say ‘delightfu’ when we’ve read the description. You see, all those words (horrifying, wonderful, hideous, exquisite) are only like saying to your readers, ‘Please will you do my job for me.’

This may be the best bit of Lewis’s advice, as it’s basically a snarky version of ‘show, don’t tell.’ Engage your audience by using vivid language that describes a situation instead of simply telling the audience how it made you feel using a range of blasé adjectives. Remember Jerry Weissman’s advice: Don’t make the audience think. Describe situations so clearly and in such a compelling nature that the audience won’t have any question as to what happened or how it made you feel.

5. Don’t use words too big for the subject. Don’t say ‘infinitely’ when you mean ‘very’; otherwise you’ll have no word left when you want to talk about something really infinite.

Lewis’s last piece of advice again addresses the need to use clear, precise language. Don’t exaggerate in your description of something as that would be an easy way to mislead your audience. Above all, if we are to follow Lewis’s advice in our presentations, use language that is as direct and to-the-point as possible. Your presentation will be much more accessible and well-received if you eliminate abstract, unclear language altogether.

Share this:

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

Like this:

Like Loading...

George Orwell’s “Politics and the English Language”

01 Tuesday Jul 2014

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

≈ Comments Off on George Orwell’s “Politics and the English Language”

Tags

Bad Legal Writing, Editing, George Orwell, Grammar and Punctuation, Legal Writing, Legalese, Plain Language, Politics and the English Language, Proofreading

Politics and the English Language, George Orwell’s Library

http://tinyurl.com/nsagx

Orwell’s 1946 essay, “Politics and the English Language” is a classic. Mr. Orwell actually had six, not five, excellent rules for effective writing. Follow these rules, and you cannot go wrong. -CCE

1. Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.

2. Never use a long word where a short one will do.

3. If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.

4. Never use the passive where you can use the active.

5. Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.

6. Break any of these rules sooner than saying anything outright barbarous.

 

Share this:

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

Like this:

Like Loading...

Lots and Lots of Jury Instructions.

29 Sunday Jun 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Jury Instructions, Jury Instructions, Jury Persuasion, Legal Writing, Trial Tips and Techniques

≈ Comments Off on Lots and Lots of Jury Instructions.

Tags

Center for Jury Studies, Jury Communication, Jury instructions, Jury Persuasion, LanguageandLaw.org, Peter Meijes Tiersma, Plain Language, Trial Tips & Techniques

The Language Of Jury Instructions, by Peter Meijes Tiersma, LanguageandLaw.org

http://tinyurl.com/qy9z2rv

Lots of information and examples on jury instructions, including a Manual on Communicating with Juries, links to criminal and civil jury instructions, to plain language jury instructions, to jury instructions for specific states, and more. If you need help writing jury instructions, this would be a good place to start. -CCE

Share this:

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

Like this:

Like Loading...

“Must Have” Plain Language Tips and Tools.

04 Wednesday Jun 2014

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

≈ Comments Off on “Must Have” Plain Language Tips and Tools.

Tags

Dictionary, Grammar, Plain English, Plain Language, Punctuation, Style guide

Tips and Tools, PlainLanguage.gov

http://www.plainlanguage.gov/howto/index.cfm

Take a good look. Links to Quick Reference Tips, Word Suggestions, Dictionaries, Thesauruses, Style Guides, and Grammar Sites. -CCE

Share this:

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

Like this:

Like Loading...

Plain Language Jury Instructions.

31 Saturday May 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Jury Instructions, Legal Writing, Legalese, Plain Language

≈ Comments Off on Plain Language Jury Instructions.

Tags

Jury instructions, Legal Writing, Plain Language

Plain Language and Jury Instructions, PlainLanguage.gov

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

Most jury instructions — long winded collections of complex sentences, arcane definitions and Talmudic distinctions — are all but impenetrable to lay people. So bad are some jury instructions that Court TV Anchor and former Prosecutor Nancy Grace reports having seen jurors turn to one another while listening to instructions and mouth the question, ‘What are they saying?’

Echoing such observations was a recent description in The National Law Journal of a judge who told jurors that a murder conviction required ‘malice aforethought.’ Unfortunately though, the jury interpreted this instruction to mean that the murder had to be committed with a mallet.

Many studies support anecdotal criticism of legalese jury instructions. For example:

• Forty percent of capital jurors wrongly believed that their jury instructions required them to accompany a conviction with a death sentence, according to a study by the Northeastern University’s Capital Jury Project.

• More than fifty percent of jurors defined ‘preponderance of the evidence’ as a ‘slow and careful pondering of the evidence,’ according to a study of Washington DC jurors. The same study found that more than 50 percent of jurors could not define ‘speculate,’ and about 25 percent did not know the meaning of ‘burden of proof,’ ‘impeach’ or ‘admissible evidence.’ . . .

Share this:

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

Like this:

Like Loading...

What The Heck Does “SS” In An Affidavit Mean Anyway?

25 Sunday May 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Affidavits, Legal Writing, Notary Jurat

≈ Comments Off on What The Heck Does “SS” In An Affidavit Mean Anyway?

Tags

Legal Writing, Michigan Bar Journal, Plain Language, SS, Thomas Selden Edgerton

After Seven Centuries, The True Meaning of SS, by Thomas Selden Edgerton, Plain Language, Michigan Bar Journal (February 2014)

http://www.michbar.org/journal/pdf/pdf4article2333.pdf

I always wondered what that “SS” meant. -CCE

Share this:

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

Like this:

Like Loading...

How To Remove “The Fluff” In Legal Writing.

25 Sunday May 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Bad Legal Writing, Brief Writing, Legal Analysis, Legal Argument, Legal Writing, Legalese, Motions

≈ Comments Off on How To Remove “The Fluff” In Legal Writing.

Tags

Brief Writing, Judge Lynn N. Hughes, Legal Writing, Legalese, Michigan Bar Journal, Plain Language

A Standard Motion Revised, by Judge Lynn N. Hughes, Plain Language, Michigan Bar Journal (May 2014)

http://www.michbar.org/journal/pdf/pdf4article2367.pdf

Judge Hughes eliminates unnecessary words, what he calls “the fluff.” In a simple, direct example, Judge Hughes clearly marks which words are meaningless, useless fillers.

You see this language used every day by lawyers and legal professionals. It is common as dirt. Some writers insist that archaic legalese is “required,” although there is no court rule, case law, or statute to support that opinion. It is not a “legal term of art.”

The point of legal writing is to persuade the reader – the court. Why do we add “the fluff”? Beats me. -CCE

Share this:

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

Like this:

Like Loading...

Judges Prefer “Plain Language.” If This Is True, Then Why Don’t We Use It?

01 Tuesday Apr 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Appellate Judges, Citations, Federal Judges, Footnotes, Judges, Legal Analysis, Legal Argument, Legal Writing, Legalese, Texas Supreme Court

≈ Comments Off on Judges Prefer “Plain Language.” If This Is True, Then Why Don’t We Use It?

Tags

Bryan Garner, Clarence Darrow, Joseph Kimble, Legal Writing, Michigan Bar Journal, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Plain English Submittee, Plain Language, Texas Plain Language Committee

 Judges on Effective Writing: The Importance of Plain Language, by Bryan Garner, Michigan Bar Journal Plain Language Committee

http://tinyurl.com/qf8fhsf

 (‘‘Plain Language’’ is a regular feature of the Michigan Bar Journal, edited by Joseph Kimble for the Plain English Subcommittee of the Publications and Website Advisory Committee. We seek to improve the clarity of legal writing and the public opinion of lawyers by eliminating legalese. Want to contribute a plain-English article? Contact Prof. Kimble at Thomas Cooley Law School, P.O. Box 13038, Lansing, MI 48901. For information about the Plain English Committee, see our website—http://www.michbar.org/generalinfo/plainenglish/home.cfm.)

Lawyers are notoriously poor at gauging what judges prefer in legal writing. Too many of us believe, for example, that judges expect us to use legalese. In 1991, when the Texas Plain-Language Committee surveyed all the state district and appellate judges in Texas, we found that more than 80 percent prefer plain language (Plaintiff complains of Defendant and says) over legalese (Now comes the Plaintiff, by and through his attorneys of record, Darrow and Holmes, and for his Original Petition in this cause would respectfully show unto the Court the following). Indeed, several judges responded to the survey with a plea that we stamp out legalese once and for all. . . .

Share this:

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

Like this:

Like Loading...

Deleting Legalese and Using Clear Language in Legal Writing.

22 Sunday Dec 2013

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Bad Legal Writing, Brief Writing, Court Orders, Legal Writing, Legalese

≈ Comments Off on Deleting Legalese and Using Clear Language in Legal Writing.

Tags

Carol Bast, Court Order, Florida Bar Association, Judge Steven D. Merryday, Legal Writing, Legalese, Plain English, Plain Language, State Bar of Michigan

Lawyers Should Use Plain Language, by Carol M. Bast (published in October 1995 Florida Bar Journal)

http://www.michbar.org/generalinfo/plainenglish/PDFs/85_oct.pdf

I have often heard the excuses for using legalese. Clients expect it. It sounds better and well, just, more “legal.” Would it surprise you to know that there is no statute, case law, court rule, or other legal authority that requires legalese? There simply isn’t.

I also have heard the excuse that legalese impresses the court. It sounds more official. Did your brief win because it sounds more pompous or because your argument was more clearly explained and understood by the court? To illustrate that point, please read this Court Order posted by Lowering the Bar Blog:

http://abovethelaw.com/uploads/2012/11/Merryday-Order.pdf

If you need further proof of dropping legalese in legal writing, see this compilation of outstanding articles by members of the Plain English Subcommittee of the State Bar of Michigan. It is a valuable motherload of articles of clear writing, and well worth studying by anyone who aspires to write well. -CCE

http://www.michbar.org/generalinfo/plainenglish/

Share this:

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

Like this:

Like Loading...
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 454 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: