Plain-language advice from "McElhaney on Litigation"
Jim McElhaney has for many years given great advice on litigation in the ABA Journal. In the January 2010 issue, he recommends against using the following words in examining a witness. I'm against the same words, for the same reasons, in legal writing:
Jim McElhaney, The Power of Plain Talk, 96 ABA Journal 22, 23 (January 2010).
Wayne Schiess
Website | Seminars | Articles | Books: Preparing Legal Documents Nonlawyers Can Read and Understand | Better Legal Writing | Writing for the Legal Audience | The Legal Memo: A Basic Guide
Prior and subsequent: "Before" and "after" are perfectly good words. Use them instead.
Previous: Worse than "prior."
Contemporaneously: Worse than "previous." "At the same time" is understood instantly.
Have occasion to: Needless clutter that often follows "did you . . . ?" Don't use it.
With respect to: An awkward way to say "about" or "concerning."
. . .
Initiate: "Start" is a perfectly good word. Use it instead.
. . .
Observe and perceive: "See" and "hear" almost always do a better job.
. . .
Indicate: "Show" and "tell" are better words. Use one of them instead.
Relate: Too fancy. "Tell" does a much better job.
Jim McElhaney, The Power of Plain Talk, 96 ABA Journal 22, 23 (January 2010).
Wayne Schiess
Website | Seminars | Articles | Books: Preparing Legal Documents Nonlawyers Can Read and Understand | Better Legal Writing | Writing for the Legal Audience | The Legal Memo: A Basic Guide
Wayne,
Thanks for featuring McElhaney's well-elucidated, non-superfluous, and succinct commentary with such brevity and clarity.
Seriously, a jury is a group of people, and one of the most persuasive rapport-builders out there is the use of "plain-speak."
(makes me glad I'm originally from Kansas. I speak plains.
Wordplay-fully yours,
Brennan
Reply to this