Judges do not like “redundancy, verbosity, and legalism”

by

Here’s the dilemma. You cannot see how you could possibly reduce your brief to meet the court’s (stingy!) page limit. Every word , every sub-sub-section you slaved over is precious. What to do? You file a motion with the court to submit your overstuffed, er, overlength brief.

The court’s response? Instead of simply denying your motion, the court denies your motion AND publicly humiliates you by stating:

A review of the proposed, twenty-nine-page motion’s commencement confirms that a modicum of informed editorial revision easily reduces the motion to twenty-five pages without a reduction in substance.

[Read more…]

How to Avoid Sexism in Legal Writing: A Pronoun Primer

by

Good legal writers should write in such a way that no one could call sexist, but also appears totally natural and not contrived. Bryan Garner recommends that legal writers adopt a style that “no reasonable person could call sexist [and that] never suggests that you’re contorting your language to be nonsexist.” In Modern American Usage, Garner suggests three solutions to the “Pronoun Problem“:

  1. Alternate your use of masculine pronouns he, him, or himself, and feminine pronouns she, her, or herself. After all, that’s what the Supreme Court Justices do.
  2. Use pronouns pairs like he or she and his or her.
  3. Avoid the pronoun problem by:
  • Deleting the pronoun
  • Changing the pronoun to an article like a(n) or the
  • Pluralizing the sentence so that he becomes they
  • Substitute the relative pronoun who for he or she
  • Repeating the antecedent noun making the pronoun unnecessary

What NOT to do – avoid the “slants.” What is a “slant”? According to William Zinsser, author of On Writing Well, a “slant has no place in good English.”  The slant is a nonword that combines the pronouns: s/he, he/she, she/he, s/he/it (really?).

For more, read “Avoiding Sexism in Legal Writing – The Pronoun Problem” here.

 

Top 20 Common Sentence-Level Legal Writing Faults (And How To Fix Them)

by

“If you can remember and identify these faults, you’ll become a more effective writer and self-editor,” according to legal writing guru, Bryan Garner. If you become a more effective and productive writer and self-editor, you will get a promotion and a raise. And win more cases. Okay, the last two are “maybes.”

Bryan Garner works tirelessly in his mission to reform legal writing and more specifically, legal writers. Because Bryan Garner cannot personally edit every written product hastily and sloppily produced (like a magical legal writing fairy) by poor legal writers, he produces helpful materials for legal writers of all experience levels. In this recent article, “The 20 Most Common Sentence-Level Faults Among Legal Writers,” Mr. Garner focuses not on the macro (large or small scale organization or content advice), but on the micro – the sentence-level. Good organization is essential, but the real communication occurs at the sentence level.

[Read more…]

On The Light Side: Humor In Judicial Opinions

by

A recent article in the Wall Street Journal, “Court Jesting: These Sentences Don’t Get Judged Too Harshly,” discussed a trend in judicial opinions – dare I say it, FUN!  Nathan Koppel reports that some judges attempt to use humor or references to pop-culture to lighten the tone.  Koppel provides examples from all levels of the judiciary, even Chief Justice Roberts of the United States Supreme Court.  In a 2008 opinion involving a drug case, Chief Justice Roberts wrote: “Office Sean Devlin, Narcotics Strike Force, was working the morning shift. Undercover surveillance. The neighborhood? Tough as a three-dollar steak.” 

Some, including Judge Alex Kozinski of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, find the sprinkling of levity in otherwise dry, dull writing to be perfectly acceptable.  Kozinski is known for not only writing well-reasoned and well-written opinions, but also for including references to pop-culture in his own writing.  However, some take a dim view of such bursts of wimsy, including Bryan Garner, author of The Elements of Legal Style.  Garner finds the use of “pop-judging” to be akin to “people in their 50s [who] talk like teenagers. It’s embarrasing.”

Whatever your opinion of the use of humor in judicial opinions, what about humor and levity in your own writing to the court? Either know your audience well (very, very well) or save it for your stand-up act or your next cocktail party.