Skip to main content

The BUSKLAW September Newsletter: Lawyers and Their Goofy Words - and What to Do About It


Growing up, I was told that lawyers were smart cookies. After all, getting a law degree isn't an easy task. You first go to college and find a subject that is best suited to how your brain works so that you can maintain a high GPA. In my case, I quickly discovered that I wasn't a good fit for the "hard sciences." So I took a lot of Political Science and English courses, learned how to write fairly well, suffered through the tedious law school aptitude test on October 20, 1973, graduated with a B.A. degree in 1974 and then went on to law school. There, I endured a legal education infused with the Socratic method (here's an example), suffered occasional migraines (because some of my law professors were truly smart but couldn't teach) and graduated with my law degree on Mother's Day, 1977. Passed the Michigan bar exam and by God, became an honest-to-goodness lawyer in November of 1977!

So having gone through undergraduate studies, law school, and the bar exam, lawyers can't stomach the idea that their legal prose is anything less than Hemingwayesque.

Here's the truth: lawyers write contracts most of the time with little attention to what their words actually mean. Their brains are on automatic pilot, using forms written by older lawyers with their brains on automatic pilot. Here are just some of the goofy words that commonly issue from lawyers' keyboards to befuddle their readers (unless the readers are other lawyers with THEIR brains on automatic pilot):
  • Herein, wherein, and provided words. These words are vague and often confusing. Consider this sentence, Except as provided herein, Able shall pay Baker $10,000 for his vintage Star Wars toy Death Star. But what does herein refer to? A contrary or conditional statement in the same paragraph, in the next paragraph, in the preceding paragraph, or somewhere else in the contract? Wherein suffers the same fate, and provided is used to express a condition or qualifying statement when a simple but will suffice. 
  • The following is a common closing sentence to a contract: IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement on May 15, 2018. There are multiple problems with this sentence. First, the phrase IN WITNESS WHEREOF is archaic, means nothing, and can safely be deleted. Second, the verb execute is misleading. The common meaning of execute is to do or perform something. So can we replace execute with performing as in The parties are performing this agreement on May 15, 2018? No, because the contract signing date usually precedes its performance! So "execute" is a poor verb in this sentence. Finally, there's no reason to capitalize Agreement. The common sense approach is that the signed document is the parties' agreement. So, let this closing statement simply say, The parties are signing this agreement on May 15, 2018.
  • Consider lawyers' fixation on such as in these sentences: Able shall pay Baker $10,000 for his vintage Star Wars toy Death Star. Such Death Star is in its original packaging. When used in this example, such is a needless pointing word. Consider deleting such and saying: Able shall pay Baker $10,000 for his vintage Star Wars toy Death Star in its original packaging. 
  • Using and/or. The use of and/or has created countless ambiguities in legal documents. Consider this sentence: Able shall sell to Baker 25 bushels of the following Michigan-grown produce: apples, peaches, cherries, and/or celery. Is the intent for Able to sell apples, peaches, and cherries or celery to Baker, or must Able sell all of these listed items to Baker as the and word suggests?
  • Using shall instead of will to denote a contract party's obligation. Plain-English legal scholars have long argued about what verb is the best, as in Able shall sell widgets to Baker or Able will sell widgets to Baker. I recently wrote a Michigan Bar Journal article that summarizes the arguments on both sides and suggests a common-sense solution. 
So how do you know if your contracts contain these (and other) goofy words? You could enter these words in the word finder box in your word processing program or PDF reader and see what turns up. But that process would take time, and you would miss the context of how these words are used. A better approach would be to take advantage of my free contract review offer, described here, and let me do it for you.

Carl Sandburg wrote a little poem about lawyers (The Lawyers Know Too Much, 1920) that includes this stanza:
          In the heels of the higgling lawyers, Bob,
          Too many slippery ifs and buts and howevers,
          Too much hereinbefore provided whereas,
          Too many doors to go in and out of.

Let me find those dead-end contractual "doors" for you - and see if we can close them! 
  ____________________________________
If you find this post worthwhile, please consider sharing it with your colleagues. The link to this blog is www.busklaw.blogspot.com and my website is www.busklaw.com. And my email address is busklaw@charter.net. Thanks!

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The BUSKLAW May Newsletter: Is There a Moral Imperative to Plain English? Part 1 - Examples

"The man in black fled across the desert, and the gunslinger followed." 

Thus begins Stephen King's epic story of the gunslinger, Roland Deschain, and the popular Dark Tower series of novels describing his adventures. But King didn't have to write this sentence that way; he could have consulted with the typical lawyer, politician, or company PR department first. Had he done so, the sentence may have appeared so:

"The bad hombre who was dressed mostly in dark clothing and running fast across an arid land was pursued by a multi-armed, extremely dangerous, and notorious vigilante."
The difference in these two sentences is clear. King's concise short sentence creates an image that grabs the reader's attention and raises provocative questions. Who is the man in black? Who is the gunslinger? Why is he after the man in black? But the Bizarro World Stephen King sentence - with its ethnic slur, passive voice, ambiguity, suppositions, and superfluous adjectives …

A BUSKLAW Newsletter Aside: Links to My Michigan Bar Journal Plain-Language Articles

Since my retirement from in-house corporate law in 2014, I've written or co-written several articles about using plain-language in contracts for the Michigan Bar Journal. And a new article has recently appeared in the October 2017 issue. But those articles haven't been a lone endeavor in any sense; I've had several plain-language experts give me their input along the way:
Plain English Scholar and WMU-Cooley Law School Distinguished Professor Emeritus Joe Kimblewho invited me to write for the Journal to begin with and has since freely given me editorial advice that not only benefits the particular article du jour but also helps my legal writing generally. And a hat tip to Journal Editor Linda Novak who has put, editorially-speaking, the "frosting on the cake" before publication of these articles. Michael Braem, J.D., Contract Manager of the Michigan State University College of Human Medicine, who has co-authored some of the articles with me. Michael has also becom…

The BUSKLAW November Newsletter: Dead Turkeys and Deader Tort Damages

November is the month of Thanksgiving. And Thanksgiving for most folks means time with family and friends (better yet, family who are friends), an appropriate but modestly-priced wine, and a turkey. Turkeys should live their brief sojourn on this earth in relative peace before winding up on our table. But that was not to be for the poor fowls in the recent Kent County (MI) Circuit Court case of White Acres, LLC et al v. Shur Green Farms, LLC et al

The case involves a plethora of parties (hence the "et al"), all of whom were in the distribution chain of a biofuel called Lascadoil. Unlike its parent product, Lasalocid, Lascadoil is not an appropriate turkey-feed additive. (Does anything with "oil" in its name sound fit for human or animal consumption?) So when a bunch of turkeys died after eating feed tainted with Lascadoil, the lawsuits started flying; each party was sued by its downstream buyer who in turn sued its upstream seller. And numerous insurance companies…