Set in Style

In a recent post, I discussed the tendency of many attorneys to put too much verbiage between modifiers and their objects — a tendency that burdens readers, and for no good reason.

I’ve got a recommendation for those attorneys, which is just perfect for any and all attorneys who think that a sentence such as the instant one is well written and likely to impress those who have better things to do with their time than spend it reading far more words than are absolutely necessary to get the point across.

My recommendation: read an article published in a quality newspaper (e.g., the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal), or a quality magazine (e.g. Law Firm Inc. or American Lawyer) and notice how professional writers (e.g., journalists) put non-restrictive clauses (e.g., those that begin with which preceded by a comma) so very close to their objects.

Then, open up a memo you wrote. Find each instance of which (preceded by a comma) that introduces a non-restrictive clause, and then find the object of that clause. Count the number of words between the object and the clause. Compare that to the number of words between a non-restrictive clause and its object in an article written by a professional writer.

Another recommendation: count the number of times you used which when the rules of grammar say you should have used that. Once again, compare your use of which to that of a professional writer.

And then give yourself a grade.

____________
Note: If you think this is a ridiculous exercise because it’s not reasonable to compare what attorneys do to what professional writers do, then consider this. And then ask yourself this: would you rather play it safe, or would you rather take a great risk each time you draft an agreement?

This entry was posted 1 May 2007 at 13:27 and is filed under Copy. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.