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.

You can improve concision by turning independent clauses into participial phrases.

First, let’s define terms. An independent clause has a subject and a verb and could be a complete sentence by itself. A participial phrase begins with a participle (an –ing verb) and modifies something; participial phrases typically serve as adjectives. Because it’s a phrase, it doesn’t have a subject.

Turning independent clauses into participial phrases means making two sentences into one, but it’s a particular way of doing it. Suppose we have these two sentences:

• Nunez and Hill had worked at the store together for four years. They had formed a strong friendship.

You can be more concise by converting the second sentence into a participial phrase. Then you can embed it inside the first sentence, setting it off with commas, like this:

• Nunez and Hill, having worked at the store together for four years, had formed a strong friendship.

Or use it to begin the sentence, like this:

• Having worked at the store together for four years, Nunez and Hill had formed a strong friendship.

The original is 18 words, and the revisions are both 17. Granted that one word is a modest gain in concision, that is often how concision works: rather than one big edit that saves many words, you make many small edits that add up.

Through UTCLE, Kamela Bridges and I are presenting a CLE seminar on legal writing on May 13 in Dallas. Details here: Legal Writing: Precision and Persuasion

Professor Bridges and I would love to see you there.

Wordiness would cover most of the concision techniques discussed in this series, such as omit needless details, deflate compound prepositions, and remove redundancy, but now let’s focus on commonly used phrases you can almost always shorten:

• prior to becomes before
• subsequent to becomes after
• adjacent to becomes next to

Want more?

• a number of becomes many
• at the present time becomes now
• at such time as becomes when
• despite the fact that becomes although
• during such time as becomes while
• for the purpose of becomes to
• in excess of becomes more than or over
• in the event that becomes if
• notwithstanding the fact that becomes although
• on a daily [monthly, yearly] basis becomes daily [monthly, yearly]

To achieve concision, edit for wordiness—and then reduce big words while you’re at it:

• adequate number of becomes sufficient

then–

• sufficient becomes enough