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…]

Judges Find Plain-English Legal Writing More Persuasive

by

A recent survey of almost 300 judges, including federal trial, federal appellate, state trial, and state appellate judges, reveals that judges overwhelmingly prefer plain-English legal writing to traditional “legalese” legal writing.

Judges commented that the plain-English version of a writing sample compared to a traditional legalese version of the same writing sample was “more persuasive because of the succinctness of the argument” and “easier to understand, more clear and straightforward, and therefore more persuasive.”  In Writing to Persuade Judges, Sean Flammer, found that judges found the cleaner, leaner plain-English version to be more effective and understandable.