A Guide for English Learners
In legal writing, like in fashion, less is more.
I know what you’re thinking. “Paula’s gone crazy! What does fashion have to do with legal writing in English?” 🤔
But hear me out... (or skip to Section II to get straight to the point.)
I. THE VALUE OF BREVITY
One of my favorite things about growing up in Los Angeles in the 1980s was the people. Angelinos were known for their bold fashion choices and their laid-back yet vibrant personalities.
People were expressive, adventurous, and always up for a good time. Whether you were cruising down Sunset Boulevard, hanging out on the Strip, or just chilling at the beach, you’d see them… these cool, confident, larger-than-life personalities just telling their stories through their clothes.
It was like everybody wanted to stand out, and in many ways, they did.
And, while they oozed coolness, this nerdy little girl figured something out…
There was something sad and lonely about all of it.
It often struck me that the happiest people I encountered in L.A. were the ones who were much more low-key. It seemed to me that, in a city full of Marilyns, it was the Audreys who were really winning, with a quiet allure that drew people in without the need for flash or fanfare.
See what I mean?
The same can be said about legal writing in English. 📝
II. WHAT TO AVOID
When English is not your mother tongue, you might feel that you need more: more adjectives, more terms of art, more relative clauses, more… whatever you can throw at your reader to feel you’re in control of the message.
But that’s not how language works.
Remember how I opened this post: In legal writing, like in fashion, less is more.
And I can prove it.
Here’s an excerpt from a piece of writing I was asked to review last week, which illustrates exactly what you should be trying to avoid:
Now, it is true that Article 1070, second paragraph, of the Mercantile Code, in its literal wording, suggests that a more extensive investigation is not required than the sending of a single official letter to an authority or institution that has a registry of persons, for the service of summons by edits to be viable; however, such rule should be interpreted in accordance with the right to a hearing protected by Article 14 of the Constitution, in order to understand that it only refers to a minimum obligation, which does not relieve the judges from making use of their power and authority to take steps to facilitate judgment, in order to sufficiently inquire about the defendant's domicile under a qualitative criterion, before proceeding to the service of summons by edicts, so they must determine the sending of official letters to the authorities or entities that have official databases in which it is more likely that any person is registered, that is, the most suitable for obtaining the information corresponding to the defendant's domicile; and only if, upon investigation, it is certain that the domicile of the person to be notified is uncertain or unknown, then service of summons by edict may proceed, in order to give legal certainty to the development of the process and not to violate the defendant’s right to a hearing and defense, this interpretation is in accordance with the aforementioned constitutional norm and does not contravene the right to prompt and expeditious trial, which must be guaranteed by the judges by means of the efficient process that gives celerity to the investigation, thus giving priority to the defendant's knowledge of the claim in order to effectively exercise his or her rights and the speedy performance of the process, in order to achieve an efficient operation of the fundamental rights of access to prompt and expeditious trial, hearing and due process, with respect to such an important procedural act as the summons to a trial.
This single sentence is 328 words long. 😱
The immediate question that comes to mind is Why would anyone subject their reader to a 328-word-long sentence?
But legal writers do this all the time, and here’s why:
➡ Complexity of Legal Concepts: Legal issues are often intricate, involving multiple parties, statutes, precedents, and legal principles. To address these complexities, legal writers may feel the need to include numerous qualifiers, exceptions, and references to ensure accuracy and thoroughness. This can lead to sentences that are packed with information, attempting to cover all possible angles and interpretations all at once.
➡ Desire for Precision and Avoidance of Ambiguity: Lawyers are trained to be precise in our language to avoid any potential misinterpretation that could lead to legal disputes or loopholes. In an effort to be extremely precise, we might use lengthy sentences filled with definitions, clarifications, and conditions, trying to leave no room for ambiguity.
➡ Traditional Writing Style and Formality: Legal writing has traditionally been formal and verbose, with a tendency to adhere to established conventions and legal jargon. This style often results in longer sentences, as writers might believe that more complex, formal language is expected in legal documents. This adherence to tradition can make legal writing unnecessarily complicated and wordy.
III. What to Do Instead
But we don’t need to subject our readers to the torture of excessively long sentences. And here’s why:
💡 Clarity and Comprehension: Shorter, more concise sentences are easier to read and understand, making the legal document more accessible to a broader audience.
💡 Modern Legal Standards: The legal profession is increasingly recognizing the importance of plain language and clear communication. Courts and clients often prefer straightforward, concise writing that gets to the point without unnecessary complexity. This shift reflects a growing awareness that legal writing doesn't have to be convoluted to be effective or authoritative.
💡 Efficiency: Shorter sentences save time for both the writer and the reader. In legal practice, where time is often at a premium, writing in a clear and concise manner can expedite the review process, reduce the likelihood of errors, and make legal arguments more persuasive. Efficiency in writing can lead to more efficient legal processes overall.
So how can we clean up that 328-word-long sentence?
Like this:
Article 1070, second paragraph, of the Mercantile Code, suggests that only one official letter to a registry authority is required for summons by edicts. However, this rule must be interpreted in line with Article 14 of the Constitution, recognizing it as a minimum obligation. Judges must use their authority to thoroughly investigate the defendant's domicile by consulting the most relevant databases. Only if the domicile remains uncertain after this investigation may summons by edict proceed. This approach ensures legal certainty and protects the defendant's right to a hearing without compromising the right to a prompt trial.
How can you do this in your own writing?
✅ Break Down the Sentence: Always try to break your sentences down into smaller, more manageable parts, each focusing on a specific point. This improves readability and clarity.
✅ Remove Redundancies: There’s a difference between strategic redundancy as a rhetorical device and just plain old repetitiveness. So, remove phrases that repeat the same idea without rhetorical value, like ‘in order to’ and ‘which does not relieve the judges.’ Simplifying these helps make the sentence more direct and concise without losing any essential information.
✅ Clarify the Interpretation: The revised sentence clearly separates the interpretation of the law from its application, making it easier to understand the process that judges should follow. This makes the argument more logical and reader-friendly.
✅ Maintain Key Legal Concepts: All key legal references, such as Article 1070, Article 14 of the Constitution, and the defendant's rights, were retained to ensure the sentence still conveyed the necessary legal information. But the focus was shifted from overly complex explanations to clear, precise language that effectively communicates the intended meaning.
Personally, I would have chopped it down more and rephrased some key vocabulary even further, but I’m not the author and there’s only so much I can sometimes convince authors to change.
But another thing I learned in L.A. is to prioritize progress over perfection and the revised version goes a long way toward reader-friendliness.
…and that’s how you go from being a Marilyn of legal writing to being an Audrey. 🌟
---
P.S. I send this post with the utmost respect for the lovely Marilyn Monroe. She was a significant presence in L.A. during my childhood, but her unfortunate and untimely death illustrates that not everything that glitters is gold.
Comments