Writing for Readers — Cutting Words
You’re an attorney, and most of what you write is read by few. But, you’ve been asked to write a client alert for your firm. Some court issued an important ruling, and it’s up to you to explain what it could mean for some of your firm’s clients (and many of its prospective clients).
You could write the alert the way you usually write, but that probably wouldn’t do much good.
Here’s why: when you write a brief or a memo or part of an agreement — when you write whatever you usually write — your audience is set. You’re not trying to attract a bigger audience. But when you write a client alert, your big goal is (or should be) to attract a bigger audience: the more the better.
The people you’re trying to attract (e.g., prospective clients and those who can influence them) are busy people. Like you, they don’t like to waste time, but they do like to learn about things they consider important. And they know that your firm isn’t the only one to issue a client alert about that important ruling. They have options.
Here’s something you can do to help attract and retain readers: cut unnecessary words; take long, drawn-out phrases, and reduce them to their essence; be as brief as can be; don’t use 300 words to say what could be better said in 100 words.
The following samples are from client alerts published by Big Law firms. In each case, we reduce the word count by at least 10%. We do something else, as well — something even more important than being concise. Can you tell what it is?
Original Copy (42 words):
Goodyear argued that each time Ms. Ledbetter was given a smaller raise than comparable men was when the alleged unlawful employment practice occurred and that no such action had occurred within the 180 days prior to the date she filed her charge.
Revised Copy (33 words):
According to Goodyear, the alleged unlawful employment practice occurred when Ms. Ledbetter was given a smaller raise than comparable men, and that had not occurred within 180 days before she filed her charge.
Original Copy (39 words):
Ledbetter alleged that for years several supervisors had given her poor evaluations because she was a woman and, as a result, her pay had not increased as much as her male counterparts, resulting in significant pay disparities over time.
Revised Copy (33 words):
Ledbetter alleged that several supervisors gave her poor evaluations just because she was a woman, and that this went on for years, making her salary significantly less than that of her male counterparts.
Original Copy (59 words):
Ledbetter argued that the paychecks that were issued to her during the EEOC charging period, the 180-day period preceding the filing of her EEOC questionnaire, were each a separate act of discrimination, claiming that the paychecks were unlawful because they would have been larger if she had been evaluated in a nondiscriminatory manner prior to the EEOC charging period.
Revised Copy: (51 words)
Ledbetter argued that, during the 180-day period before she filed her EEOC questionnaire, each paycheck issued to her was a separate act of discrimination. She claimed that those paychecks were unlawful because they would have been larger if she had been evaluated in a nondiscriminatory manner before the EEOC charging period.
____________
Now, you might think that all we’ve done is reduce the word count by at least 10% in each of the above examples. But, we’ve done much more than that. In each case, we’ve made the copy easier to read, as well. And that’s a key element of writing for readers.
