Clear legal writing works.

I'd wager that most people consider clear legal writing to be an oxymoron. I'd even bet that most lawyers think clarity and legal writing are unhappy bedfellows, an unnatural pairing.

Legal writing can describe, explain, convince, and in the best of cases, cause people to change their minds. Clear writing does all this better: better than formulaic writing, better than "legalese", better than trying to write as would a caricature bureaucrat.

I came across an example of clear legal writing when reading an article in The New York Times. It's a letter by New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo to U.S. Representative Barney Frank that criticizes compensation practices by troubled insurance group AIG.

This letter exemplifies clear legal writing:

  • It's brief. Three pages, less than 850 words.
  • It's self-contained. A Martian, freshly arrived on Earth and able to understand English, would understand the points that Cuomo makes.
  • It gets to the point. In the first paragraph, the reader understands what the letter is about and why Cuomo's office is sending it. We also learn that it's relevant to a hearing scheduled for "tomorrow". The letter presents relevance and urgency better than any number of red "urgent" stamps.
  • It summarizes facts and presents background economically.
  • It uses the passive voice judiciously and prefers active verbs.
  • It sketches out arguments. The letter offers its recipient arguments that the recipient will find helpful and useful.
  • It uses a bullet-point list to present a group of facts. For this reader, bullets are perfect in this setting.
  • It's real. The writer doesn't shy away from plain English, and writes as he would speak.