The Lawyer's Guide to Writing Well. Tom Goldstein
ection>
THE LAWYER'S GUIDE
TO WRITING WELL
Tom Goldstein
Professor, Columbia School of JournalismColumbia University
Jethro K. Lieberman
Associate Dean for Academic Affairs,Professor of Law, and Director,The Writing ProgramNew York Law School
SECOND EDITION
University of California Press
Berkeley / Los Angeles / London
University of California Press
Berkeley and Los Angeles, California
University of California Press, Ltd.
London, England
© 2002 by
he Regents of the University of California
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Goldstein, Tom.
The lawyer's guide to writing well / Tom Goldstein and Jethro K. Lieberman.—2nd ed.
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 0-520-23472-3 (cloth : alk. paper). — ISBN 0–520–23473–1
(paper : alk. paper)
1. Legal composition. I. Lieberman, Jethro Koller. II. Title.
KF250 .G65 2002
808'.06634—dc21
2002009717
Manufactured in the United States of America
10 09 08 07 06 05 04 03 02 01
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
The paper used in this publication is both acid-free and totally chlorine-free (TCF). It meets the minimum requirements of ANSI/NISO Z39.48–1992 (R 1997) (Permanence of Paper).
To Leslie and Jo
CONTENTS
PART I WHY LAWYERS WRITE POORLY
1 Does Bad Writing Really Matter?
PART II THE PROCESS OF WRITING
4 Of Dawdlers and Scrawlers, Pacers, and Plungers: Getting Started and Overcoming Blocks
5 The Mechanics of Getting It Down: From Quill Pens to Computers
6 Lessons from a Writing Audit
7 Lawyers as Publishers: Words Are Their Product
9 Form, Structure, and Organization
10 Wrong Words, Long Sentences, and Other Mister Meaners
12 Making Your Writing Memorable
SUGGESTED REVISIONS TO EDITING EXERCISES
PREFACE
The first edition of this book was written in 1988, at a time when many critics were bemoaning the state of legal writing but few were doing anything about it. Between October 1987 and June 1988, we asked 650 people familiar with legal writing—practicing lawyers, judges, professors, writing instructors, and journalists who report on legal topics— what bothered them most about the way lawyers write. We do not pretend that our survey was scientific: We sent a four-page questionnaire to people listed on our Rolodexes. As journalists we had covered law and the legal profession since the early 1970s for a variety of news media, and our list included thoughtful lawyers and writers in half the states and every major city; most major law firms, scores of smaller firms, and courts; law schools; and newspapers, magazines, and broadcast stations across the country. The answers from 300 respondents inform a portion of this book. People named in the text but not identified in the notes were respondents and are identified in the acknowledgments. Unattributed statements about what lawyers, judges, professors, writing instructors, and journalists “think,” “feel,” or “believe” are drawn from the statements of these respondents, as are some of the displayed quotations.
In the dozen years since the first edition appeared, there have been vast changes in the technology of communications—the ways in which lawyers produce and distribute their letters, memoranda, briefs, and other documents. In the late 1980s, desktop computers were beginning to find their way into lawyers' offices, but probably few lawyers used them regularly or proficiently. (Indeed, lawyers at some firms told us they were forbidden to touch a computer; managing partners in those days viewed the “word processor” as a tool for secretaries and typists, not professionals.) By today's standards, early desktop computers were clunky machines, though surely useful and already then revolutionizing the production of legal paper. Although laser printers became available, few offices had hooked them to their computers or were realizing their potential to supplant the print shops to which at least the