|
Plain English for Lawyers Reviewed by Susan McDonald We have all heard the jokes about legal writing. Richard Wydick, in Plain English for Lawyers, puts it this way: We lawyers do not write plain English. We use eight words to say what could be said in two. We use arcane phrases to express commonplace ideas. Seeking to be precise, we become redundant. Seeking to be cautious, we become verbose. Our sentences twist on, phrase within clause within clause, glazing the eyes and numbing the minds of our readers. The result is a writing style that has, according to one critic, four outstanding characteristics. It is (1) wordy, (2) unclear, (3) pompous, and (4) dull. (page 3.) Sad, but somewhat true. The good news is that Wydick’s Plain English for Lawyers, now in its fifth edition, offers practical and usable advice for all lawyers who write. The book is short — only about 140 pages — so you can easily read it in a single sitting and learn at least the basic principles of plain English. But the real strength of Plain English for Lawyers is that it goes beyond the basics and actually enables and inspires readers to simplify their legal writing. The book is organized in chapters dedicated to eight elements of plain English. The elements are familiar to anyone who has ever thought much about writing: Omit surplus words. So what makes this book different? Wydick not only explains the elements of plain English; he also provides strategies and techniques that can convert the most “wordy, unclear, pompous and dull” writing into clear and concise plain English. For example, it is easy to say “Omit surplus words.” But it is not so easy (especially for lawyers) to identify which words are “surplus” and figure out how to get rid of them. Wydick helps by defining words in a sentence as either “working words” or “glue words,” depending on their function. The working words carry the meaning of the sentence. In the preceding sentence, the working words are these: working, words, carry, meaning, and sentence. The others are glue words: the, the, of, and the. The glue words do perform a vital service. They hold the working words together to form a proper, grammatical sentence. Without them, the sentence would read like a telegram. But if the proportion of glue words is too high, that is a symptom of a badly constructed sentence. This analysis gives writers a practical way to identify and omit surplus words. Wydick’s other strategies and techniques are similarly effective. He does not just criticize “word-wasting idioms”; he offers possible substitutes. When some elements of plain English may be conceptual or vague, he clarifies with more specific guidance. For example, to help you “choose your words with care,” Wydick suggests using ordinary words rather than lawyerisms, concrete rather than abstract words, precise single words rather than a shotgun blast of words. He gives examples that are striking and memorable. How can you forget the importance of putting modifying words close to the words that they modify when you think of these sentences: “The defendant was arrested for fornicating under a little-used state statute” and “A trustee who steals dividends often cannot be punished.” Wydick’s narrative is (not surprisingly) clear and concise. But mere explanation of plain English is not sufficient. As Wydick notes, “you cannot learn to write plain English by reading a book. You must put your own pencil to paper” (page 6). So the book includes exercises to guide you in putting “pencil to paper.” The exercises, which generally include poorly written sentences with instructions to correct particular defects, make Wydick’s book an effective teaching tool rather than simply a theoretical discussion of writing. While Wydick advocates some drastic changes in legal writing, he is still a lawyer. As a lawyer, he understands the real and historical constraints under which lawyers work. For example, he recognizes that lawyers cling to “redundant legal phrases” because they “are busy, cautious people, and they cannot afford to make mistakes. The old redundant phrase has worked in the past; a new one may somehow raise a question.” Researching the necessity for those old phrases takes time, but as Wydick points out, “once you slay one of these monsters, it will stay dead for the rest of your legal career.” In the same way, Wydick recognizes legitimate exceptions to the general preference for the active voice over the passive voice. Most interestingly (and maybe most relevant to legal writing), he says “you can use [the passive voice] when you want to muddy the waters,” such as when you do not want to state outright that your client committed a particular act. Perhaps the part of Wydick’s book that will most frequently draw readers back for reference is his section on punctuation. Because readers “use punctuation as a guide to meaning,” lawyers should obviously punctuate carefully. To that end, Wydick includes a detailed punctuation guide that addresses the proper placement of every punctuation mark. Wydick acknowledges that the standard modern sources “do not always agree with each other,” so “where they disagree, [he has] suggested the approach that will produce clarity with as little complexity as possible.” This is the place to go when you and a client or colleague cannot agree where that comma should go. The jokes about legal writing are probably here to stay. But most lawyers recognize the importance of effective writing and strive to write plainly. Plain English for Lawyers provides the strategies and tools to make all writing, even legal writing, concise, clear, unpretentious and interesting. Plain English for Lawyers deserves a permanent place on every lawyer’s desk. • • • Susan McDonald is a Nashville lawyer who focuses her practice exclusively on providing legal research and writing services to other lawyers. You can reach her at susan@researchandwritinglawblog.com. Tennessee Bar Journal
|