An Analytical Mind at Work
Check out the beginning of this attorney-authored article:
As you may have already heard or read, a Durable Power of Attorney (DPA) is a very important and beneficial document to have available, not only as you age, but at other times as well.
2 March 2007 at 19:48
Reminds me of the exchange between Jack Nicholson and Tom Cruise in “A Few Good Men”:
Cruise: “Was he in grave danger?”
Nicholson: “Is there another kind?”
Beyond that, how about the last sentence?
“the durable power of attorney is
indeed is one of the most desirable
and beneficial documents to have
within your estate planning arsenal.”
“is indeed is”?
3 March 2007 at 6:51
I also get a kick out of the widely circulated bills. Are they more valuable than those in the strong box?
5 March 2007 at 10:34
One could complain about many things in that sentence. “…important and beneficial,” for example; not that the terms are synonymous, but are there documents one wants to have available that are important but not beneficial?
5 March 2007 at 10:57
Let’s suppose the author — Bruce Fogel — has written the article to satisfy some assignment in a writing class, and that — before he submits this article — his grade point for the class is running at 3.8. In that case, it might be important for him to have this article (let’s suppose that 50% of his final grade is based on it), but it would not be very beneficial to him (seeing as it’s going to bring his grade down substantially).
6 March 2007 at 4:38
I see your point in that context, but in terms of legal documents (such as wills and DPAs) are there any important-but-not-beneficial ones?
6 March 2007 at 6:30
Not that I can imagine.
Mr. Fogel suffers from a malady common to many who have taken legal writing classes — using 24 words when 12 would do (and be better).
The goal of a legal writing class isn’t to get students to write clear and concise copy — it’s just the opposite.
6 March 2007 at 12:47
Oh, that malady is not limited to victims of our legal education system.
But you already knew that, didn’t you?
6 March 2007 at 13:21
It seems to strike them with a particular vengence.
Consider this little snippet:
I can’t imagine that the author wrote stuff like that before he took his legal writing classes.
8 March 2007 at 6:48
Mister Thorne,
I have just stumbled across your site and enjoy it a great deal. I am always on the lookout for sites that relate to good legal writing.
I do take issue, however, with your comment that “The goal of a legal writing class isn’t to get students to write clear and concise copy — it’s just the opposite.”
I have actually taught legal writing classes, and know a good many other fine legal writing instructors. One of the most common themes preached in the modern legal writing class is that conciseness and plain language are far more important and effective than “the opposite[s].” This may be a recent development that coincides with the recent increase in status and recognition that the legal writing community has been gaining in the academic world, but it is widespread in the modern legal writing classroom.
This particular example would receive a failing grade in any class I taught, precisely because of the verbosity and disregard for plain language. I suspect that the vast majority of legal writing instructors would agree. I would suspect that the author of this would not have written that before going to law school, but I would hesitate to suggest that the result comes from the legal writing classroom itself. I think it more likely that it comes from reading too many outdated forms and poorly drafted legislation, where this kind of writing is all too common.
As I said, I enjoy your site and intend to bookmark it. Keep up the great work!
Cheers,
IMK
8 March 2007 at 7:36
IMK:
I thank you for your thoughtful remarks, and I certainly appreciate what you say about the modern legal writing class. The times, they are a changing!
But there must still be in circulation plenty of those who teach their students that old dictum: “the more words you use, and the more obscure they are, so much the better.”
I say this because I find plenty of young associates doing things the old way. (The tongue-twister above — the one about Rule 206 — was written by an associate with just a few years of experience.) They might not be learning the old way from their legal writing instructors; perhaps they’re getting it from their other instructors. That, I can’t say.
What I can say is this: to any and all good instructors offended by my comment, my apologies.
Again, thanks for joining the discussion.