We use cookies to give you the best online experience. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy. Learn more here.Close Me
I know this will come as quite a shock to many, but my
tendency toward bookishness goes way back.
Yeah, who knew?
When I was little I used to love one of the features in
Reader's Digest called "It Pays To Increase Your Word
Power."
I used to sit with a pencil and paper and try to learn the fifty
cent words, then use them in every day conversation.
But now that I'm grown, I come to find out that it
does not pay to increase your word power.
In fact it pays to do quite the opposite: keep it simple. Very
simple.
After the jump some legit research and another look at what
makes good writing good in the Supreme Court of Texas.
When are fancy words not so good? Almost always as it turns out.
What could be more simple or more powerful than, "Mr.
Gorbachev, tear down this wall." Four words, each one
syllable. You know which wall. You know what ought to be done. As
it turns out, the command and the tide of history were
irresistible.
What if, instead, President Reagan had said something
like:
Mikhail Sergeyevich Gorbachev, unobstruct this portcullis. Even
further, dismantle this edifice.
He might have, if he had legal training. Thankfully, he did not.
Fancy is not so good.
As it turns out, if you want to look smart, if you want to pack
a persuasive punch, keep your words simple. The research proves
it.
The researchers took college admission essays, fancied them up
with big words, presented them to research subjects, and then asked
them what they thought. The complex texts did not make the author
seem more intelligent. The opposite was true. The applicants with
gussied up essays were more likely to be rejected. They missed
their persuasive goal.
Good legal writers, just like good writers anywhere, know and
practice this. Look again at the first three sentences of In re E.R. that I posted on last week. A perfectly
accurate way to begin that opinion would be:
The constitution guarantees due process when the state invades a
protected interest, such as when it seeks termination of parental
rights. Due Process requires, inter alia, notice and an opportunity
to be heard. Moreover, said notice must be provided in a fashion
such as is reasonably contemplated to be received by the persons
whose interests are at stake.
Legally speaking, there is nothing wrong with those sentences.
But compare them to what Chief Justice Jefferson wrote. My
"fancy" and erudite version isn't nearly as good
as:
When the State seeks to sever permanently the relationship
between a parent and a child, it must first observe fundamentally
fair procedures. The most basic of these is notice. If the State
cannot deliver notice in person, it may try other means that will
likely reach the parent.
Not only is the Chief's version shorter, the jargon is
gone. The words are simple, and an abstract legal issue is made
concrete and practical:
instead of the euphemism "termination of parental
rights," you get the plain spoken "sever permanently the
relationship between a parent
anda child"--real consequences for a
real person in this real case.
Instead of "due process" you get "fundamentally
fair procedures"--the bottom line test of due process.
Instead of a formulaic recitation of elements you get
"notice" that will "likely reach the
parent."
All through the first year of law school, they told me
I needed to learn how to "think like a
lawyer." True enough, but don't forget how to
communicate like a human.
I've used the Churchill quote before, but In re E.R. reminded me of it again:
"Short words are best and the old words when short are best of
all."
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
A discussion on some practical tools lawyers can use, or consider using, in order to decrease defense costs and to increase the chance of concluding a case sooner rather than later.
A discussion on the generally recognised principle that contracting parties owe each other a duty of good faith in the performance of their contractual obligations.
In a recent decision characterizing precedent as a seven decade "aberration," the Supreme Court of California permitted plaintiff loan borrowers to introduce against a defendant banking institution parol evidence directly contradicting the very terms of the parties’ written loan agreement.
Recently, the blogosphere has been all "atwitter" regarding the fact that, unbeknownst to the consumer, Apple Computer has been capturing location data from iPhones and iPads.
