Writing for Readers (Who Lack Law Degrees)
Your car isn’t acting quite right and you need a mechanic.
So . . . you describe what’s wrong with the car to two mechanics, and they speculate like so:
Mechanic #1:
“The polarized input capacitor of the voltage regulator might be allowing too much variation in potential, and that’s causing the negative feedback servo control loop to malfunction.”
Mechanic #2:
“It’s either the alternator, the regulator, or the battery gone bad.”
Now . . . which mechanic gets to work on your car?
If you’re like most, you’ll choose the one you can understand.
| Suppose you’re an attorney, and you’re talking to a doctor. You need to decide whether to have an operation, or take medication, or just live with it. You want the doctor to speak in plain terms, right? |
____________
Consider the following copy*, the opening paragraph to a short article describing a recent court ruling:
On November 10, 2009, the Missouri Court of Appeals for the Western District ruled that any maintenance due a former spouse as part of a divorce decree terminates upon the remarriage of the party receiving the payments so long as there is no express agreement otherwise. The Court went on to hold that the use of the word “only” was insufficient to show this express agreement. See the opinion here.
That was published by an attorney “dedicated to helping victims of personal injuries and representation of individuals facing divorce and/or child custody disputes including child support, spousal support/alimony, paternity claims, adoptions, and other domestic issues.”
But it works against the attorney, a solo who helps people with the legal aspects of divorce. And that’s because it’s so danged formal and long-winded.
Who would you rather call if you needed a divorce lawyer — an attorney “dedicated to helping victims of personal injuries and people dealing with divorce, child support, alimony, adoptions, and other domestic issues,” or the one who wrote the intro above?
| When people have real problems, they don’t want the solutions to be incomprehensible. When they have to make important choices, they don’t want to feel lost. When they’re looking for a lawyer, they’re looking for someone they can understand. |
____________
If you’re an attorney and you want to tell prospective clients about some court ruling that affects them, use their lingo, like so:
An appeals court in Missouri ruled that a husband doesn’t need to pay maintenance (alimony) to his former wife after she remarries even though the divorce decree says he does.
The intro to a story shouldn’t weigh readers down with details, the way the intro to a brief does. It shouldn’t contain lots of facts. All it should do is this: encourage the reader to continue reading.
If you’re writing to a very broad audience (e.g., middle-income people who might need a divorce lawyer), don’t be so formal. You’re not writing a brief, and your audience doesn’t know the law.
Before you start writing, imagine a mechanic, or a doctor, or anyone who might need a divorce lawyer.
Write for that person, not a judge.
Write in such a way that each paragraph encourages readers to continue reading.
Unlike a brief, nobody has to read your story, and if it’s not interesting, they won’t.
______
* That copy was revised shortly after I posted this.
8 December 2009 at 10:17
I appreciate your comments and your link. I have revised my intro accordingly. I do have two points, however.
One, Daniel E. Stuart is not the author of the post (and probably doesn’t want his good name spoiled by my writing).
Two, your intro mistates the facts in that it says “though the divorce decree says he does.” This is a point of contention I have been having. When you try and simplify legal opinions you sometimes miss the meaning or worse misstate the law. How do you suggest overcoming this (i.e., how do you simplify while maintaining accuracy)?
8 December 2009 at 11:37
Well, we can’t misstate the law, but telling a story isn’t quite the same.
It might be better to put the intro like this:
“An appeals court in Missouri ruled that a husband doesn’t need to pay maintenance (alimony) to his former wife after she remarries even though the divorce decree says he has to pay until she dies.”
That’s more accurate, and just as palatable.
My point is this: if you want to attract potential customers, use their language, not a foreign one.