ILNews

What are lawyers' pet peeves when it comes to legal writing?

Jenny Montgomery
July 6, 2011
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

In April, a Missouri attorney filed an eight-page motion seeking clarification of the opposing counsel’s pleading. Attorney Richard D. Crites criticized his opponent’s grammar, use of apostrophes, and lack of detail, writing in his motion that the pleading “is the worst example of pleading that Defendant’s attorney has ever witnessed or read.”

Legal bloggers quickly picked up the story, with lawyers around the country chiming in about what distinguishes good legal writing from bad.

Stodgy wording

Anne Cowgur, a litigation partner for Bingham McHale in Indianapolis, talked about some of the language she could live without.
 

cowgur-anne-mug.jpg Cowgur

“‘Enclosed please find …’ – my reaction to that is: Are we begging them to find it?” Cowgur said. “Why can’t we just say ‘Enclosed is’” and continue with the thought.

Cowgur has an undergraduate degree in broadcast journalism from the University of Illinois. Her mother was an English teacher, so she said her disdain for poor writing may be hereditary.

“I have a big problem with when you use a lot more words to say something than what you really need,” she said.

Cowgur said she objects to: “Anything that’s like, ‘Lookie here! I’m about to say something!’” The phrases, “Further affiant sayeth not (or naught),” and “Comes now the plaintiff” are among her least favorite in legal writing.

Terry English, a solo attorney with offices in Bloomington and Bedford, said that while some lawyers could benefit from stronger writing skills, he thinks legal writing is clearer today than in years past.

“I’ve seen it evolve over the past 30 years or so – it used to be, from my perspective, substantially more stilted,” he said.


english-terryBW-mug.jpgEnglish

English is a former managing editor for the (Bloomington) Herald-Telephone, which later became the Herald-Times. He also taught advanced newspaper reporting at Indiana University and is a board member for the Indiana Journalism Hall of Fame.

“If you keep in mind that the sole reason you write is to communicate, then that takes a lot of the stuffiness out of it,” English said.

Lawrenceburg solo attorney Leanna Weissman holds undergraduate degrees in English and journalism from Indiana University. She works solely on appellate cases.

“I think having the journalism degree has helped me to write as a lawyer,” Weissman said. “Because you learn how to put things out there clearly, and you learn how to organize your thoughts in such a way that you put the most important thing first.

“Especially in the appellate arena, clear language is important,” she said. “I think they want you to get to the point and say it clearly and directly.”

English said judges may have limited time to read court documents, and that’s one reason why attorneys should be succinct in their writing.

“One of the things that I do notice about language is that I believe that a lot of attorneys believe that a judge in a particular case will have the opportunity to read and understand everything that they say, and I don’t believe that’s the case,” he said.

English relies on a tool of journalistic writing – the inverted pyramid – to make sure judges read the most important information first.

“I don’t believe that judges have the time to go over 10- or 12- or 14-page briefs,” he said.

Indiana Rules of Court, Rules of Trial Procedure, Rule 8(E)(1) specifies that: “Each averment of a pleading shall be simple, concise, and direct.” Although, not all court documents follow those guidelines.

“You’ll see these relatively simple motions that start with the complete history of the case,” Cowgur said.

Know your audience

In July 2010, the Indiana Judges Association’s Civil Instructions Committee announced the debut of simplified jury instructions. The Indiana Model Civil Jury Instructions use plain language and simple examples that help jurors understand concepts like circumstantial evidence. Lawyers, however, don’t need clarification of standard legal terms or concepts, English said.

English said that terms such as “res gestae” or “res ipsa loquitur” could be explained more clearly, but doing so isn’t necessary when writing for other attorneys.

Weissman agrees that attorneys should tailor their writing for the people reading it.

“A brief that you write to the trial court is going to be a lot different than the brief you write to the court of appeals,” she said.

Although lawyers and judges may be accustomed to seeing Latin phrases and other terms not found in everyday writing, some legal documents could benefit from a little fine-tuning, Cowgur explained.

“Especially in litigation documents … when you’re filing court pleadings, and when you write 30 days, it bothers me when you write ‘thirty (30) days.’” She said that using both the numeral and the word for “thirty” is a safeguard, because typographical errors are common with numerals.

“So that’s the reason for it, and it makes sense in complicated transactional documents, but when you’re asking for a 30-day extension of time, it really doesn’t make sense,” she said.

Teaching good writing

“Education in America now doesn’t teach students to be grammarians or great spellers,” English said. He said that while teaching journalism at IU, he spent a substantial amount of time teaching students about basic grammar.

“I think quite honestly that there needs to be even more of an emphasis on legal writing in law school,” he said. “You’re only required to have – as I recall – one class, one year, of legal writing and research. I think it would be beneficial to attorneys to have more than that.”•

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT