Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 19 MARCH 2014

A plea for clarity in legal writing

The article claims the use of double negatives, sub-clauses, redundant phrases and qualifiers pollutes legal writing.

AustraliaLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration

As a law student, I thought I was ill-equipped to enter the legal profession. It wasn't because of any vocational concerns I had. It was just that my eyes watered badly when I spent long hours in the library reading and re-reading law reports and texts to try and comprehend the wisdom hidden within. Those learned writings were—frankly—a slog.

I blamed myself at the time. I also got a new pair of glasses and stocked up on caffeine tablets. But now that I've spent nearly 20 years working as both a lawyer and a journalist, I'm more inclined to blame the authors.

When you read normally, your eye skips across the page and your brain fills in the gaps. When you read as a lawyer, you have to focus on every word because so much can depend on the detail. But that's not enough reason to let lawyers get away with making reading their work hard work.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from