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. I have been on this program while on parole from 2011-2013. No person should be forced mentally to share private details of their personal life with total strangers. Also giving permission for a mental therapist to report to your parole agent that your not participating in group therapy because you don't have the financial mean to be in the group therapy. I was personally singled out and sent back three times for not having money and also sent back within the six month when you aren't to be sent according to state law. I will work to het this INSOMM's removed from this state. I also had twelve or thirteen parole agents with a fifteen month period. Thanks for your time.

  2. Our nation produces very few jurists of the caliber of Justice DOUGLAS and his peers these days. Here is that great civil libertarian, who recognized government as both a blessing and, when corrupted by ideological interests, a curse: "Once the investigator has only the conscience of government as a guide, the conscience can become ‘ravenous,’ as Cromwell, bent on destroying Thomas More, said in Bolt, A Man For All Seasons (1960), p. 120. The First Amendment mirrors many episodes where men, harried and harassed by government, sought refuge in their conscience, as these lines of Thomas More show: ‘MORE: And when we stand before God, and you are sent to Paradise for doing according to your conscience, *575 and I am damned for not doing according to mine, will you come with me, for fellowship? ‘CRANMER: So those of us whose names are there are damned, Sir Thomas? ‘MORE: I don't know, Your Grace. I have no window to look into another man's conscience. I condemn no one. ‘CRANMER: Then the matter is capable of question? ‘MORE: Certainly. ‘CRANMER: But that you owe obedience to your King is not capable of question. So weigh a doubt against a certainty—and sign. ‘MORE: Some men think the Earth is round, others think it flat; it is a matter capable of question. But if it is flat, will the King's command make it round? And if it is round, will the King's command flatten it? No, I will not sign.’ Id., pp. 132—133. DOUGLAS THEN WROTE: Where government is the Big Brother,11 privacy gives way to surveillance. **909 But our commitment is otherwise. *576 By the First Amendment we have staked our security on freedom to promote a multiplicity of ideas, to associate at will with kindred spirits, and to defy governmental intrusion into these precincts" Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Comm., 372 U.S. 539, 574-76, 83 S. Ct. 889, 908-09, 9 L. Ed. 2d 929 (1963) Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, concurring. I write: Happy Memorial Day to all -- God please bless our fallen who lived and died to preserve constitutional governance in our wonderful series of Republics. And God open the eyes of those government officials who denounce the constitutions of these Republics by arbitrary actions arising out capricious motives.

  3. From back in the day before secularism got a stranglehold on Hoosier jurists comes this great excerpt via Indiana federal court judge Allan Sharp, dedicated to those many Indiana government attorneys (with whom I have dealt) who count the law as a mere tool, an optional tool that is not to be used when political correctness compels a more acceptable result than merely following the path that the law directs: ALLEN SHARP, District Judge. I. In a scene following a visit by Henry VIII to the home of Sir Thomas More, playwriter Robert Bolt puts the following words into the mouths of his characters: Margaret: Father, that man's bad. MORE: There is no law against that. ROPER: There is! God's law! MORE: Then God can arrest him. ROPER: Sophistication upon sophistication! MORE: No, sheer simplicity. The law, Roper, the law. I know what's legal not what's right. And I'll stick to what's legal. ROPER: Then you set man's law above God's! MORE: No, far below; but let me draw your attention to a fact I'm not God. The currents and eddies of right and wrong, which you find such plain sailing, I can't navigate. I'm no voyager. But in the thickets of law, oh, there I'm a forester. I doubt if there's a man alive who could follow me there, thank God... ALICE: (Exasperated, pointing after Rich) While you talk, he's gone! MORE: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law! ROPER: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law! MORE: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? ROPER: I'd cut down every law in England to do that! MORE: (Roused and excited) Oh? (Advances on Roper) And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you where would you hide, Roper, the laws being flat? (He leaves *1257 him) This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast man's laws, not God's and if you cut them down and you're just the man to do it d'you really think you would stand upright in the winds that would blow then? (Quietly) Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake. ROPER: I have long suspected this; this is the golden calf; the law's your god. MORE: (Wearily) Oh, Roper, you're a fool, God's my god... (Rather bitterly) But I find him rather too (Very bitterly) subtle... I don't know where he is nor what he wants. ROPER: My God wants service, to the end and unremitting; nothing else! MORE: (Dryly) Are you sure that's God! He sounds like Moloch. But indeed it may be God And whoever hunts for me, Roper, God or Devil, will find me hiding in the thickets of the law! And I'll hide my daughter with me! Not hoist her up the mainmast of your seagoing principles! They put about too nimbly! (Exit More. They all look after him). Pgs. 65-67, A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS A Play in Two Acts, Robert Bolt, Random House, New York, 1960. Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen. of Indiana, Indianapolis, for defendants. Childs v. Duckworth, 509 F. Supp. 1254, 1256 (N.D. Ind. 1981) aff'd, 705 F.2d 915 (7th Cir. 1983)

  4. "Meanwhile small- and mid-size firms are getting squeezed and likely will not survive unless they become a boutique firm." I've been a business attorney in small, and now mid-size firm for over 30 years, and for over 30 years legal consultants have been preaching this exact same mantra of impending doom for small and mid-sized firms -- verbatim. This claim apparently helps them gin up merger opportunities from smaller firms who become convinced that they need to become larger overnight. The claim that large corporations are interested in cost-saving and efficiency has likewise been preached for decades, and is likewise bunk. If large corporations had any real interest in saving money they wouldn't use large law firms whose rates are substantially higher than those of high-quality mid-sized firms.

  5. The family is the foundation of all human government. That is the Grand Design. Modern governments throw off this Design and make bureaucratic war against the family, as does Hollywood and cultural elitists such as third wave feminists. Since WWII we have been on a ship of fools that way, with both the elite and government and their social engineering hacks relentlessly attacking the very foundation of social order. And their success? See it in the streets of Fergusson, on the food stamp doles (mostly broken families)and in the above article. Reject the Grand Design for true social function, enter the Glorious State to manage social dysfunction. Our Brave New World will be a prison camp, and we will welcome it as the only way to manage given the anarchy without it.

ADVERTISEMENT