

On writing (and law) - grellas
http://grellas.com/articles.html

======
swombat
I hate to do this, since grellas is a very active and valuable member of this
community and clearly cares about his wordsmithing, and as a writer myself I
bleed personally and profusely at any direct criticism (I heal up, too, but
that doesn't mean it didn't hurt).

However, I must say it: I don't think this is good writing.

Writing is like design. It can only be meaningfully called "good" when it
achieves a purpose. What is the purpose of this article? It seems to be "to
help people (lawyers in particular) to write better".

Does it do that? Well, it's got some tips about writing better, but they are
generally hidden underneath the beautiful sentences. Let's take, as an
example, one of the clearer paragraphs:

 _In advocacy, good writing will reflect muscularity, pulling a reader from
first to last by force of logical inevitability. This style requires a firm
grasp of subject. It requires solid, understated control so as to convey a
feel of assured confidence. And it avoids key flaws: it does not strain, or
vaunt, or table-pound, or attack the person. It is professional. It has class.
It works like a powerful engine under the hood: it does not show itself, but
anyone who hears that quiet hum will immediately sense its power. Done right,
it projects quintessential vigor: it races along and even leaps off the page
on the strength of its own power alone._

That's all very true, but I'm not entirely sure it will help someone who
doesn't already understand this point. It is not actionable advice for people
who don't already know how to do it.

This article would serve its purpose better if it not only described what good
writing is, but also how to achieve it, and if it did so in a way that makes
it easier for the reader to extract the information out of it (at the moment,
the only way to get the information out of this article is to read through
every single sentence, and evaluate each of them to see if it actually brings
some new insight).

That said, the prose is beautiful. But this article is like a beautiful design
that looks brilliant but isn't functional (either that, or I haven't figured
out the purpose of this article).

~~~
grellas
Ouch . . . but thanks, I always welcome sound criticism and I don't think I
disagree with your points. The piece probably is more directed to what might
be called "principles of good lawyering as they incidentally touch on
writing." There is a short section in which I do touch directly on writing
principles (recounting "good writing rules" and then bringing up my pet peeve
about how they are not to be applied mechanically) but that is the only direct
discussion of that topic. Concerning lawyering principles, I don't think there
is anything I would edit or change and so maybe it is an issue of a poor title
for the piece (and a theme that needs to be recast a bit).

Thanks again for the honest criticism. That is one of the great benefits of
putting one's work out there. It definitely helps you sharpen and refine it as
it is appraised by smart people.

~~~
pigbucket
>maybe it is an issue of a poor title for the piece

The simple title of the HN submission works better for me than the original
title.

------
bromley
I'm a programmer/business owner that once needed several specialist contracts
drafted, but couldn't afford to hire a specialist lawyer to draft them. A
lawyer friend of mine gave me a load of sample contracts and drafting notes,
and I spent the next 6 weeks copying, pasting, and modifying.

I'm not convinced it was the best use of my time, and it's quite possible the
resulting documents were a legal disaster (although I thought they were pretty
good). But it was certainly an interesting experience.

After a couple of weeks I came to the conclusion that drafting contracts is
actually a lot like programming. The aim of both is to specify precisely what
should happen in response to various conditions.

if partyA terminates agreement then partyB should get X, Y, and Z. And so on.

One key difference is that, whilst programming languages are built for
precise, unambiguous writing, English is not. It's very hard to write English
in a completely unambiguous way. It's even harder to write English in a way
that can't be intentionally misinterpreted by someone who stands to gain by
doing so.

Breaking up a sentence to improve the readability can often add new ways in
which the meaning can "reasonably" be interpreted. Often it's easier to be
precise in meaning with a 500-word sentence than with five 100-word sentences.
And many English words can be interpreted in multiple ways, so you often have
to use unusual words that have a precise accepted meaning set by legal
precedent. Hence the complexity you often see in legal documents.

I talked to my lawyer friend about this, and he agreed. He also pointed out
that, as professional legal drafters improve, they typically write more
readable documents with less jargon, but no less precision of meaning.
Irrespective of how precise they are in meaning, contracts that are hard to
make sense of are often the sign of a rookie. A bit like programming again.

------
rmah
I think you could replace "legal writing" with "technical writing" and the
article would still be on the mark. While it focuses on legal writing, many
bits of advice the author gives would apply to many situation where you're
trying to explain, convince or illuminate with your prose.

------
jcr
GG, I hope I can ask the underlying difficult question without causing any
offense.

What spurred you to write this?

~~~
grellas
A combination of two things: (a) my own failings over the years in trying to
learn how to write; and (b) strong beliefs about what lawyers should be doing
to serve their clients well when they write things.

As to the first, my first language was Greek, not English, and I spent
literally years going through all the resources available (S&W, Zissner, Hugh
Blair, many others) in trying to lay a sound foundation for how to write well.
Even as I did so, though, I realized that technical rules were insufficient in
themselves to help you master the art of writing well. This essay identifies
other factors that affect good writing but are not normally discussed as part
of technique (thinking for oneself, mastering languages, etc.). I wrote this
piece in part to try to give others a broader perspective on why it is
important to focus on more than technical rules if they want to write well.

As to the second, I have seen all sorts of ways that those in my profession
would mess up in connection with written items, and these often went far
beyond writing technique. I wrote this piece in that sense both as a caution
to lawyers and also as a guide to clients in what to look for in good lawyer
writing.

This, then, was my attempt to articulate a broader perspective on "good
writing" (not focused on technique) as it applied to the things lawyers do. I
thought it might be useful to the HN community both because many here are
keenly focused on the topic of writing and also because many are consumers of
legal services.

~~~
jcr
I used to write extensively, but due to my health, on good days I can now only
muster a handful of paragraphs. I have stretches of months on end where all of
my time is spent just reading, all input, and no chance of even the smallest
output without pain. It is infuriating.

I went for a dual major in English and Mathematics, so I'm not entirely an
autodidact in English, but I still like to believe my own study and practice
was more beneficial than directed study. At least, it feels that way, but this
is most likely due to cognitive bias.

I have multiple lawyers, judges, and justices in my family, as both immediate
and distant relatives. I enjoy case law and "reading law" albeit I have no
true aspirations towards becoming a lawyer. The idea of "reading law" to
become a lawyer is very tempting challenge, but there's little point in
becoming a lawyer when I can lose my ability to write for long periods of
time.

As a bit of a shut-in with too much time on his hands (pun intended), I have
read your posts for years, even longer than I've had this account. Again,
there was little point in joining HN when I could not post and participate.

Your mastery of the English language has always been impressive, but far more
importantly, your mastery of the given subject matter is far more impressive.
You think well, and hence, you write well --not the other way around.

In fast paced exchanges, you do not always take the time to read well. But
this is true of nearly everyone.

In my question to you in my previous post, instead of the term "spurred" I
could have easily used "inspired" or "caused" to lessen effect, or
alternatively used "incited" to give greater effect.

The subtle point being, I see this particular piece of your writing as
reactionary. The vast majority of written law (as I know it) and legal
correspondence (as I know it) is reactionary. Given the significant time and
effort you have obviously put into both reading and writing legal related
text, you have gained the habit of reaction and think in terms of crafting
correctly leveled response. It is the perfect mindset of a lawyer doing their
job, but there is more to writing itself.

In the case of this particular piece, it seemed as though something had been
bothering you for a long time, and finally escaped in a frustrated reaction. I
know that feeling far better than most since I live with it building every
day. Then again, it could simply be my own externalization, a confirmation
bias running rampant.

You did not have the luxury of English as your first language, so more than
most US lawyers, you had to work much harder to learn it. Those in your
profession who did not bother to learn beyond the basics they already knew
stand as an affront to the work you've invested in becoming more proficient
than they are. In short, they don't care when you do care, and this kind of
disparity is always annoying to the latter.

Your reaction was a correctly measured and level response, but if I read it
correctly, your real desire was to convince, express and instruct. Instead of
trying to write in a new and unfamiliar way, you fell back on your training,
or better said, your habits if you will, and wrote a reactionary piece.

If per chance my analysis is not completely flawed, can you isolate in your
own mind the "last straw" that finally provoked you to react?

Take the time to write a full and harsh rant about the last straw with the
intent on never sharing it with anyone. The real goal is to get the
frustration out of your system rather than mask your frustration behind a
leveled response. You may _think_ you vented already in your rough drafts, but
it's not out until it's out with a vengeance. Be vicious. It really helps.

When you're done with the rant, rest. Sleep on it.

Now you can get back to the underlying problem; How do I convince others in my
profession to care about writing?

You'll first need to accept this will be an uphill battle. Lawyers are, by
definition, trained to convince others and trained to avoid being convinced by
others. Your target demographic is exceedingly difficult. Both your reasoning
and your rhetoric will need to be extraordinary to have any lasting effect.
You may need to stop thinking like a lawyer, or thinking like a judge, or even
thinking like a statesman to have your desired effect.

In attempting to make your piece accessible to lay people, namely clients, you
are not merely helping all of us normal people, but you are also leveraging
your position with the lawyers you are trying to convince. How else can you
use leverage? I'm sure you have better ideas than I do, but the bar
association comes to mind, as well as the judges and even the actual laws.

The major point I would like to make should be self-evident; we all have
writing habits, but the means and methods we normally use may not be well
suited for the task at hand. Taking a step back from our usual habits,
scrutinizing them, and finding our own biases can be very fruitful, especially
when you can see the need for another approach and you have the courage to try
something different.

I'm sorry but my hands are sore and I have to stop here. As always, it's tough
to show critical thinking without seeming overly critical, but I hope this
rough draft of my thoughts is of some use to you.

------
hesitz
Off topic a bit, but for help on legal writing I think the work by Bryan
Garner is the best I've seen. Simple, direct, full of great advice and
examples. Great stuff:

<http://www.lawprose.org/bryan_garner/books.php>

------
lwhi
This is a great essay about language, which provides a lot of practical
advice: <http://www.resort.com/~prime8/Orwell/patee.html>

------
achompas
This is incredibly outside HN's scope.

~~~
fredoliveira
It always bothers me when I read something like this - I strongly disagree.
There's always going to be things that are tangential to what can be
considered HN's main "scope" - I'll go on a limb and say the main scope here
is programming and entrepreneurship. Writing (and communication in general) is
a key component of what makes an exceptional coder/entrepreneur (or
professional, to generalize). So I _do_ think this is a great post to see on
HN. And lets be honest, there's a ton of other good posts to read on the
homepage right now if you do not like this one - thats what makes HN pretty
darn good.

