The Legal Writer: Government legalese
By:
Mark Painter
Columnist
Published: October 19, 2009
Tags: legal writing
Legalese is bad enough. But when it’s blended with bureaucratese, it becomes even worse.
This is from a recent government document:
During the last two years, we have implemented and initiated many improvement efforts toward streamlined, transparent, collaborative services for our internal federal and external public customers. This revision to the handbook continues to implement our foundational regulatory document 41 CFR 102-194, while embracing the electronic government transformation over the last 10 years with a view toward the vision of transparency, participation, and collaboration in government. [...]
31.5 Words per sentence – Grade level 21.9
Readability score 0
Who has completed the 21st, almost 22nd grade? That is the number of years of formal schooling you must have before you can understand that passage on first reading. Considering than only 17 percent of Americans read at or above the 12th-grade level – and no one reads at the 21st – the passage will bewilder all readers. A zero readability score is difficult to achieve – but not for legislatures, governments – or unfortunately, lawyers.
A quick fix:
During the last two years, we have tried to improve and our services for both our internal federal and external public customers. We have made our process more streamlined, transparent, and collaborative. This revision to the handbook continues to implement 41 CFR 102-194. But it also embraces the electronic progress of the last 10 years. [The rest repeats the second sentence.]
13.2 Words per sentence – Grade level 8.7
Readability score 56
The grade level now makes it possible for many citizens to read this.
(Note: To get accurate readings, substitute X for 41 CFR 102-194. The jumble of letters and numbers skews the calculation – just as does putting citations in paragraphs.)
Ordinary legalese
Here’s another gem, sent by Cincinnati lawyer Eric Eifrig:
Subject to the limitations set forth in the last sentence of this Subparagraph 1 and the next following Subparagraphs 2, 3, and 4 of this Paragraph C, if the representative of my estate, in such the representative’s sole discretion, shall determines that there are not enough appropriate assets of my estate are not available in sufficient amount to pay (a) taxes levied against or with respect to my taxable estate by reason of my death, including interest and penalties thereon, if any, (b) debts and expenses of administration of my estate, and (c) any bequests under my Will, other than a residuary bequest, the Trustee shall, upon the request of the representative of my estate, contribute from the principal of the trust estate the amount of such the deficiency; and in connection with any such that action, the Trustee shall rely upon the written statement of the representative of my estate as to the validity and correctness of the amounts of any such debts, taxes, expenses and bequests, and shall furnish funds to such representative so as to enable such the representative to discharge the same, or to discharge any part or all thereof of them by the Trustee’s making payment directly to the governmental official or agency or to the person entitled or claiming to be entitled to receive payment thereof.
212 Words per sentence – Grade level 45.8 Readability score 0
We won’t even try to fix that. It should be completely rewritten.
The first step would be something such as this:
Subject to the limitations set forth in the last sentence of this Subparagraph 1 and the next following Subparagraphs 2, 3, and 4 of this Paragraph C, if the representative of my estate, in such the representative’s sole discretion, shall determine that there are not enough appropriate assets of my estate are not available in sufficient amount to pay (a) taxes levied against or with respect to my taxable estate by reason of my death, including interest and penalties thereon, if any, (b) debts and expenses of administration of my estate, and (c) any bequests under my Will, other than a residuary bequest, the Trustee shall, upon the request of the representative of my estate, contribute from the principal of the trust estate the amount of such the deficiency; and in connection with any such action, the Trustee shall rely upon the written statement of the representative of my estate as to the validity and correctness of the amounts of any such debts, taxes, expenses and bequests, and shall furnish funds to such representative so as to enable such the representative to discharge the same, or to discharge any part or all thereof by the Trustee making payment directly to the governmental official or agency or to the person entitled or claiming to be entitled to receive payment thereof.
Just taking out the suchs and thereofs and sames helps a bit, but there’s still a long way to go.
Of course, the first phrase, Subject to the limitations set forth in the last sentence of this Subparagraph 1 and the next following Subparagraphs 2, 3, and 4 of this Paragraph C, sets the tone, which is that the drafter was too lazy to think out the document as a whole. Any document that relies on more than a couple provided thats or subject tos or nothwithstandings is poorly written. Provided that should be changed to if, only used sparingly, and never more than once in a sentence. If provided that cannot be if and mean what you intend, then rewrite.
__________
Mark Painter served as a judge on the Ohio Court of Appeals for 14 years. In March 2009 he was elected by the United Nations General Assembly as the only American to serve on the United Nations Appeals Tribunal. Judge Painter is the author 6 books, including The Legal Writer: 40 Rules for the Art of Legal Writing. The new fourth edition is available here.
You can contact Judge Painter through his website, www.judgepainter.org.
© Copyright 2012 Lawyers USA. All Rights Reserved.
NEW FREE WHITE PAPER: E-Discovery
This FREE e-report brought to you by Lawyers USA contains the latest tips for conducting thorough and successful electronic discovery for your trial in 2012. We’ve analyzed the latest court rulings and trends in e-discovery to help you and your clients avoid sanctions and win your case.
Click here to get your free White Paper today!
Most Viewed Stories
FEATURED PODCAST
Baby Boomer lawyers and retirement
Nelson Schwartz from The New York Times recently wrote an article titled, "Easing Out the Gray-Haired. Or Not.," spotlighting the fate of the Baby Boomer generation within law firms. Attorney and co-host Bob Ambrogi welcomes Attorney Valerie C. Samuels, a partner in the firm Posternak Blankstein & Lund LLP and co-chair of the Employment Law Group, and Attorney Roy Ginsburg, to take a look at this generation of baby boomers within law firms, retirement, their fate within the firm, options upon retirement and what this means for law firms: big, small and solo.
Click here to listen to the podcast.
Click here to download the podcast.
Click here for the Podcast archive.
![[Print]](http://lawyersusaonline.com/wp-content/plugins/tdc-sociable-toolbar/print.png)
![[Email]](http://lawyersusaonline.com/wp-content/plugins/tdc-sociable-toolbar/email_2.png)
![[RSS Feed]](http://lawyersusaonline.com/wp-content/plugins/tdc-sociable-toolbar/rssfeed.png)
![[del.icio.us]](http://lawyersusaonline.com/wp-content/plugins/tdc-sociable-toolbar/delicious.png)
![[Facebook]](http://lawyersusaonline.com/wp-content/plugins/tdc-sociable-toolbar/facebook.png)

POST A COMMENT