Prepositions, verbs, clauses, active voice...
Sounds like I'm doing Primary School work? Well, it's called Plain English for Lawyers.
That's right! Lawyers are supposed to write in Plain English! (If that's even possible!)
Lawyers tend to enjoy using Latin or Old English terms even though there are equivalents in modern, ordinary English. This is highly frustrating, to the general public & to 1st year Law students! My Criminal Law lecturer is an exception though. "Why use Latin terms when I can use English terms?"
Perhaps, it adds to the supposed "exclusivity" of the Law society.
Anyways, some of the things in the my prescribed reading are just ridiculously hilarious!
_________________________________________________________
Something from the article - Plain English for Lawyers:
"Here are two ways a lawyer might write to a client to explain why the lawyer's bill is higher than the client expects.
Example One: The statement for professional services which you will find enclosed herewith is, in all likelihood, somewhat in excess of your expectations. In the circumstances, I believe it is appropriate for me to avail myself of this opportunity to provide you with an explanation of the causes therefor. It is my considered judgement that three factors are responsible for this development. Primary among them is the mutually unanticipated expenditure of time which is being necessitated by the litigation involved herein. To wit, the counsel retained on behalf of the several parties defendant is endeavouring, perhaps, in emulationem vicini, to effect depletion of our resources and destruction of our morale by undertaking deposition proceedings with the purpose of obtaining testimony from numerous deponents whose factual knowledge with respect to the instant litigation is negligible at best...
Example Two: The bill I am sending you with this letter is probably higher than you expected, and I would like to explain the three reasons why. First, the case is taking more time than either you or I expected. The defendants' lawyer, perhaps drive by spite, is trying to wear us down by taking the pretrial testimony of many persons who know little, if anything, about the facts..." (1)
(1) Richard C. Wydick, Plain English for Lawyers
_________________________________________________________
Not only do lawyers tend to be verbose, they also tend to have a penchant for long sentences.
In fact, the Internal Revenue Code has a sentence containing five-hundred-and-twenty-two words!
According to the article, I've to:
(1) trim out verbose word clusters;
(2) avoid compound prepositions;
(3) shorter clauses and phrases;
(4) not use redundant legal phrases;
(5) use familiar, concrete words;
(6) not use lawyerisms (e.g. aforementioned, whereas, hereinafter);
(7) use short sentences;
(8) to tabulation to split up long sentences (which I've clearly exhibited);
(9) use base verbs;
(10) use the active voice;
(11) keep the subject close to the verb;
(12) keep the verb close to the object
(13) put modifying words close to what they modify;
(14) avoid elegant variation;
(15) avoid the noun chain confusion avoidance technique
(16) avoid using sexist language (because there are female judges & male nurses);
and
(17) avoid throat clearing (it is interesting to note that throat clearing refers to the use of words such as "clearly", "obviously" and "it is interesting to note that").
In this post, I've already flouted some of the guidlines in the article. Even my citation is wrong.
Ergo, I, Su Ern Lee, being a Law student in good standing do hereby and henceforth pledge, insofar as reasonably feasible, to defer to the aforementioned guidelines and utilize Plain English in my future academic legal endeavours.
