Part 2 of 4
I recently read some writing advice offered by a capable lawyer with 10 years’ experience. The advice was offered in absolute terms, and I thought it was oversimplified. Here’s the advice with my own take.
“Never use pronouns.”
You can’t follow this advice literally. It’s not possible to write a memo or motion or brief and never use a pronoun. Well, maybe it’s possible, but you’d end up with awful, stilted-sounding prose.
So this (4 pronouns, including 1 possessive pronoun):
- Kessler argues that under section 101.001, she is entitled to reinstatement to her former position, to the wages she lost, and to reinstatement of seniority rights she had earned.
would have to be re-written like this (no pronouns):
- Kessler argues that under section 101.001, Kessler is entitled to reinstatement to Kessler’s former position, to the wages Kessler lost, and to reinstatement of seniority rights Kessler had earned.
No one should write like that.
Based on the examples the lawyer gave, what was meant was probably something more like don’t over-rely on pronouns. But for a sophisticated legal writer, even that advice is too simple. I’d offer something more like ensure that each pronoun has a clear and unambiguous referent (antecedent).
In the following example, the pronoun this is vague.
- The court held that section 101.001 does not apply. This means Kessler cannot rely on section 101.001.
It’s not clear what “this” refers to. But we can clarify by adding a noun that the word this points to (this, that, these, and those are demonstrative pronouns, which some experts call “pointing words”):
- The court held that section 101.001 does not apply. This holding means Kessler cannot rely on section 101.001.
In the following example, the pronoun she is ambiguous:
- Ms. Gilmer and Officer Kara Lopez arranged a meeting to discuss the case, but when the time for the meeting arrived, she did not show up.
“She” could refer to Ms. Gilmer or Officer Kara Lopez. To clarify the meaning, we can replace the pronoun with a proper noun:
- Ms. Gilmer and Officer Kara Lopez arranged a meeting to discuss the case, but when the time for the meeting arrived, Officer Lopez did not show up.
or we can rewrite the sentence to avoid ambiguity:
- Ms. Gilmer did not show up for a meeting she had arranged with Officer Kara Lopez to discuss the case.
My view is that for high-caliber, sophisticated legal writing, absolute prohibitions typically aren’t the best advice. Inform yourself about the advice, consider your audience and purpose, and exercise your editorial judgment.
 In fact, in an example legal document the lawyer displayed for another purpose, there were four pronouns in the first three sentences. All four pronouns uses were appropriate and precise; I’m just pointing out that it’s not reasonable to advise, “Never use pronouns.”