Category Archives: Plain English

Plain English memos and briefs: a series, part 2

Should memos and briefs be written in plain English?
No, except in rare circumstances.

Memos are intended for lawyers, typically senior lawyers knowledgeable about the law. Briefs are intended for judges and their clerks and for opposing counsel—all lawyers. Documents intended for lawyers do not need to be written in plain English.

Granted, some plain-English principles work well in memos and briefs, and we all need to improve our analytical legal writing. But as a general principle, memos and briefs do not need to be written in plain English.

Plain English memos and briefs: a series, part 1

I wrote a series of posts about whether plain English–by which I mean “true” plain English as I define it–is right for transactional drafting. That series begins here. My conclusion was that true plain English, which I define as legal writing intended for nonlawyers, is not right for many transaction documents because they are not meant to be read and understood by nonlawyers.

Here’s what I think about plain English in memos and briefs.

The audience for analytical legal writing
All legal writing should be appropriate for its audience—it should speak to the reader in words, sentences, and forms the intended reader can understand. Thus, practitioner analytical legal writing—primarily objective memos and persuasive briefs—should be appropriate for their audiences: the supervisor who assigned the memo, the judges and clerks who will read the brief, and so on.

It is rare for the primary audience for a memo or brief to be a nonlawyer. Yes, it is conceivable that nonlawyer clients will want to read a memo or brief prepared on their behalf. It is conceivable that a memo or brief relates to a matter of public interest and that nonlawyers will want to read it. But neither situation is typical.

So when we talk about plain-English legal writing, we are usually not talking about memos and briefs. Instead, we’re talking about consumer transactions in which one or both of the parties is a nonlawyer.

A tough criminal jury instruction

From an opinion of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, I quote the following instruction used in a criminal case in Texas:

“You are instructed that any evidence which, in your opinion, mitigates against the imposition of the Death Penalty, including any aspect of the defendant’s reputation, character, or record, or any of the circumstances of the commission of the offense which have been admitted in evidence before you, may be sufficient to cause you to have a reasonable doubt as to whether or not the true answer to any of the special issues is ‘yes’; and in the event such evidence does so cause you to have such a reasonable doubt, you should answer the issue ‘no.’”

That’s tough to follow, isn’t it?

For what its worth, here’s some data:

  • 96 words per sentence
  • 23 Flesch Reading Ease Score (out of 100; 60 is plain)
  • 22 Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (10 years beyond high school)

But it would be tough to revise, too. Revising jury instructions isn’t easy, and revising criminal jury instructions can be really tough. Or so I’ve been told by a law professor who was working on the committee to redraft California’s jury instructions.

McElhaney on “talking like a lawyer.”

In the September ABA Journal, Jim McElhaney writes about cross examination. At one point he says “Stop trying to talk like lawyers.” He offers this list of words you use when you talk like a lawyer and a list of words to use instead. Link to article.

Instead of this > use this

prior, previously > before
subsequent > after
contact > talk to, call, see
state whether > tell us
did a time come when you > did you
were you aware that > did you know
relative to > about, concerning
maintain surveillance > watch
observe > see, hear
vehicle > car, truck
concede > admit
occur > happen
determine > find out
relate > tell us

Jim McElhaney, It’s All About You: Use Cross-Exam to get Their Witness to Agree to Your Version of the Case, ABA Journal 22, 23 (Sept. 2010).

I agree and would add, “Stop writing like lawyers.”

Apply his list not only when you talk but also when you write.

Bad legal writing is everywhere

I hereby authorize the Merchant, or it’s Agent, to initiate a debit entry to the account indicated above at the depository financial institution named above and to debit the same to such account. I acknowledge that the origination of ACH transactions to my account must comply with the provisions of U.S. Law.

Huh?

How can we improve this? I don’t know enough about the substantive law or the reasons for some of the language contained in the original, but here’s a shot:

By clicking “confirm,” you authorize the merchant or its representative to deduct the amount show below from your account at your financial institution–listed above. Your origination of this ACH transaction must comply with U.S. law.