Read herein below about superfluous words and Too Much Capitalization
ABAJournal.com reports on a judge who has ordered lawyers stop using capitalization with abandon:
A federal bankruptcy judge is fed up with lawyers who use superfluous words and too much capitalization, and he has directed them to stop it.
U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Robert Kressel of Minnesota took a stand against legalese in new guidelines (PDF) for lawyers preparing proposed orders in his court, Legal Blog Watch reports, citing a story by Lawyerist.
Kressel says lawyers should eliminate superfluous words such as “hereby,” “herein” and “heretofore entered in this case.” The phrases “serve no purpose other than to make the document sound more legal, which is exactly the opposite of the goal that I am trying to accomplish,” he writes. “Compare the meaning of ‘Now, therefore, it may be and is hereby ordered that’ with ‘It is ordered.’ ”
Kressel also observes that “lawyers love to capitalize words. Pleadings, including proposed orders, are commonly full of words that are capitalized, not quite randomly, but certainly with great abandon. Please limit the use of capitalization to proper names. For example, do not capitalize court, motion, movant, debtor, trustee, order, affidavit, stipulation, mortgage, lease or any of the other numerous words that are commonly capitalized.”
This doesn’t fit in the “Consequences of Sloppiness” category as it is both (1) a preventative action rather than an imposition of consequences in a reaction to sloppy work and (2) addressing an area of document prepartion that does not involve sloppiness. However, the judge go on to admonish lawyers regarding proper use of the English language:
Kressel also says lawyers need to keep their plurals and possessives “straight and consistent,” need to watch verb tense, and need to use the possessive “its” and the contraction “it’s” correctly.
Don’t use “and/or,” he counsels. But do use articles such as “the,” “a,” and “an” as appropriate. Refer to “the debtor,” rather than “debtor,” for example.
The first is a simple matter of proofreading (assuming one knows the correct rules.) While I have often made such mistakes here on this blog, none of the posts are intended to be filed in court!
There are several points to be made here. First, a professional legal document is not a document filled with legal jargon and archaic language. Indeed, as Kressel suggests, the opposite is likely the case. Second, although this order is addressed to attorneys, it is likely paralegals will be charged with compliance. Third, it is necessary to know and practice proper use of the English language, a matter of reality my students, many paralegals and more than a few attorneys seem determined to deny.
The last point is well made in a recent guest post on The Paralegal Mentor blog by Lori Robinett, President of the Mid-Missouri Paralegal Association entitled, “Use of the English Language..” You should read the entire post, but here’s the sound bite:
Preciseness and accuracy are an absolute necessity. And the way you use language is a reflection on you and your employer. Take the time to learn the English language, pay attention to grammar, punctuation, and spelling.
Finally, the ABAJournal.comstory end with Kressel saying,“Write the way you would speak.” Unforunately, based on listening to many, many hours of listening to attorneys arguing motions and in other oral arguments, it seems he may regret the statement if attorneys take him literally!