Here are two related concision techniques most of us are already using, even if we didn’t know what the techniques were called.

“Pro-verb” is a term coined by the linguist Otto Jesperson to describe verbs that are used in place of other verbs just as pronouns are used in place of other nouns. In English, the most common pro-verbs are do and its forms (did, done, doing) and do so and its forms (did so, done so, doing so). In the next examples, the pro-verb did replaces operated:

1a. The Claimant operated the same machinery that other employees operated.
1b. The Claimant operated the same machinery that other employees did.

Example 1b doesn’t save words (though it’s three syllables shorter), but in the next examples, we save words because do so replaces order a new trial.

2a. The court has the authority to order a new trial, but it should not order a new trial.
2b. The court has the authority to order a new trial, but it should not do so.

Using the pro-verb cuts the sentence from 18 words to 16 and avoids repetition.

Legal writers can also elide verbs—omit them—where they’re understood. Thus, we can shorten example 2b even further by removing words from the second verb phrase: should not do so becomes should not:

2c. The court has the authority to order a new trial, but it should not.

Now we’ve cut the sentence from 18 words to 14. Concision.