Read on Twitter
Like Lord Denning said about springtime and young men whose thoughts naturally turn to cricket or whatever, it's 5 am on a Sunday morning, so my thoughts naturally turn to the intricacies of written advocacy. Having earlier shared some tips on cross-examination and appellate oral
submissions, I now share some reflections on written submissions in the law. I review a lot of writing by others, for a host of collateral purposes. Draft Facta, chapters in books, articles, but mostly legal writing in relation to appeals. I work collaboratively often. Edit a TON
Here are the two pitfalls I identify that stand in the path of clear writing the most often. (1) Hedging your bets on meaning. If you don't know exactly what you want to say or what you think about an issue, you might soften the impact by qualifier words such as "not necessarily"
or "not entirely" or "somewhat" for eg. "There was no definitive evidence of any significant incidence of clearly assaultive behaviour for some period prior to the date of..." That kind of stuff weakens your argument to the point that it's rendered ineffective & useless. Be clear
Be candid. Don't try to water things down or evade a problem in your case. Face the thing against you head on, tell the truth and put it plainly. Plain writing doesn't have to be boring. You can speak & write simply but effectively, as long as you're being truthful & clear. Write
as close to how you would speak, as possible. Know what your position is, express it in the simplest terms possible, as if you are telling it all to a 12 year old in the 7th grade. If they get it, any reader will understand your point. Brings us to problem #(2): overcomplicating.
There's this pervasive myth out there that legal writing must be fancy. Or extra smart in a way that's inaccessible to others. Nothing could be further from the truth. The best writing is the cleanest, most direct, least Latin thing you can think of. Short sentences, small words.
