believe me, we all know that we can all be better writers, so

I know. But I write real good. Yes, you D'oh! Welcome to the Geek in review Podcast focused on innovative and creative ideas in the legal industry. I'm Marlene gave our and I'm Greg Lambert. In this episode, we pulled together a group of four experts in the legal and writing field to discuss the issues around legalese and writing in plain English.

Yes, so the Fantastic Four that we have are A. Neil Guthrie, the author of Guthrie's Guide to Better Legal Writing. Chris Trudeau, who wrote The Public, speaks an empirical study of legal communication. Jesse Katz, a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist and legal writing editor, and Sara Harris, a lawyer and an editor on the American Lawyers Young Lawyers Editorial Board. It's a really, really great

group. They have ah, lot of suggestions on how to improve legal writing and, you know, really be honest, Marlene. I think their advice could work with any writing.

Oh, I I agree with you 100%

so we have a lot to unpack in that section. So let's jump into this week's information inspirations. My inspiration this week. You know, it's not an article like it usually is, but rather it's this event I attended that was sponsored by the Houston Young Lawyers Association. And there was a subgroup within the young Lawyers association of first generation lawyers. And while I am actually a first generation lawyer, I'm not exactly young. So, you know, I pulled some favors and, uh, from my Jackson Walker colleagues Sanction and Monica Lopez to sneak me in. The panel was fantastic, and they discussed the issues around recruiting at large law firms and a boutique firms and at a government agency.

So there's a panel of four there.

And while the information you know, there was some great information and advice given by the diverse group of Panelists, there was actually this question from the audience. That was the thing that impacted me the most on this. So there is this law student who is a young black male, and he mentioned that in one of the applications he filled out online, he was asked why his experiences as a minority would benefit the law firm to which he was applying. And the panel Yeah, the panel just kind of looks stunned that this this question would be what would even be asked. But the reasons behind this is so he was asking, you know, what are the reasons that a question like this is is being asked to minority applicants? And why do minorities have to explain why they're being a person of color matters to the firm? And quite frankly, is this a question that's practical or even fair to be asking? And I don't think it iss

well, I know that there is a discussion on fish full about this as well, and you had a lot of interesting commentary ranging from the ethical to the practical. Yeah, if you're part of that, I would definitely check that

out. I think it was just an example of some of the firms out there that are still being a bit tone deaf on diversity. And then, really, I would hope that if I saw this or anyone I know, or to see the sort of question that they would call out the recruiting committee and have them understand that this is not gonna be interpreted well and that they should not really be asking these sorts of questions. on the on the recruiting questionnaires.

Sounds like it caught more than a few people off guard. You know, nobody was really expecting that which, you know, makes your your point. All that more report. My inspiration this week is an excellent article by Evan Parker Hi M in who is a PhD and the founder of Parker Analytics Consultancy, which focuses on talent, diversity and strategy. Parker Analytics is also the official analytics partner, Toothy Leadership Council on Legal Diversity. So in the Arctic, 11 walks us through a primer on how to present data toe legal audiences. And this is this is perfect timing because, you know, this is really the Holy Grail in this space, you know,

and it really touches on a message we're going to hear later in the interview. You know, how do you make your message compelling to your audience? And Evan really nails it when he offers his three guiding principles. The first is to understand what data benefits legal professionals and lawyers. The second is default to conceptual illustrations and intuition, and third, less is more.

You're right. That does sound a lot like what we're about to talk

about exactly exactly. So the first principle do have to know your audience. It's what they care about and not what you think they should care about. Uh, the second principle. Conceptual illustrations and intuition. I mean, I literally clap my hands, but I read Evan's description of the Orange Line to get his audiences to understand the concept of a regression model. So here's the Orange Line. This is the prophet you would expect from average law, firm factors to the right, increased profits, factors to left, decrease profits just elegant. And and the third principle less is more again, the topic of our interview. This episode state and fewer words keep the explanation of the data simple. Keep the visual simple. Keep in mind that the Data Thio Inc ratio. So this is this is an Edward Tough

T rule. That's not. I was wondering how long it'd take you to the O.

T. Into the conversation. I really need to get his autograph something. It's his rule to keep the viewer focused on the data. So not just the pretty colors or cool graphics. You know, I love Evan Cop Evans comment that I'm not gonna comment on like three D bar charts. It's like, Hey, amen to that. Oh, and great. I think we need a T shirt that says, Don't be a quant jock contest. That is a beautiful thing. I pass this on to my team immediately, and I know that we will be applying these principles in our presentations and Eman we'll probably be reaching out.

Oh, and I would be remiss if I didn't give a shout out to Jason Barnwell for his thoughtful article in law 360 on law firm evolution. It's an overall rich interview and being in the innovation space. Ah, couple of things, Jason said, really struck me. The scarcest thing we have is human attention, and we're going to be using support technology to focus this attention where it's most needed, where we need judgment, creativity and empathy. And I thought that framing was very

powerful. Yeah, it was good stuff. Jason always has something wonderful to say so,

and that wraps up this week's information inspirations.

One of our biggest fans of the show is, well, she's my sister in law, Windy. So hey, Wendy, she loves the innovation topics, and somehow or another she's able to apply some of what we covered to her high school classes that she teaches. So Windy reached out to me a couple of weeks ago and suggested that we talk about how bad legal writing congee. And she said that she has seen some pretty unreadable legal documents in her interaction with attorneys and wondered why they would make it so difficult to read

and understand. So that motivated us into pulling together. A group of authors on the subject, one from a law firm, won a law professor, won a Pulitzer Prize winning reporter who is now legal editor at a big law firm. And then Greg Graham, one of his attorneys in his firm's Dallas office, to sit in and give us her perspective as someone who is actually writing legal documents. So let's get right into it. You know what they have to say

about writing and playing English Way would like to welcome our four fantastic guests today on the Beacon Review, so we're going to talk about communicating in plain English and especially when it comes to legal issues and topics. Yes, are

fantastic for today are Neil Guthrie, the director of professional development research and Knowledge Management at aired and burlesque L. O. P. In Toronto. And he's also the author of Guthrie's Guide to Better Legal Writing. Chris Trudeau, law and medical professor at the University of Arkansas, Little Rock and the author of The Public, speaks an empirical study of legal communication, as well as journal articles on plain English writing for lawyers and health care. Jesse Katz, litigation editor at Oh Melvin and Myers, as well as Pulitzer Prize winning journalists before taking on his editing role. And Sara Harris, a Jackson Walker associate who is known for her legal writing skills and his editor for the American Lawyers. Young lawyer at editorial board. Welcome, everybody.

All right. So the idea behind the stop it actually came in from my sister in law, Wendy Anderson, who is not a lawyer. But she is ready but full of yes, yes, has thrown out a few ideas here. She's actually a science teacher in Colorado. She brought this up when we were talking, and she found that her communications with the lawyers, especially written communications, were just simply too complex for it. Understand? So she thought that actually, she thought that lawyers did this on purpose s O that that she would feel intimidated. Or that lawyers think that if they make a legal issue easy for a lay person, understand, it might have a negative effect on the lawyer's business. So before we began, anyone wanna agree or disagree with the my sister in law's interpretation,

I could jump in if you want. This is Chris. Hey, Chris. Yeah, like tending. Disagree. Well, I don't disagree with your sister feeling that way. I absolutely you understand that that she feels that way and one of the study one of the studies I did in 2012 which you mentioned in the opening. But I also I also redid that, uh, last year from an international perspective. But that was one of the things we asked people who had used a lawyer within the last 1 to 5 years. I believe, was the first study kind of how it makes them feel when lawyers use. And I'm kind of paraphrasing the actual question because how it makes them feel well,

lawyers use Latin terms or complicated terms to explain a problem. And you know that these were people who had said that they had quit reading a document, you know, midway through at the time, and one of the 81 I think kind of qualitative responses was almost exactly what you just said your sister felt is, you know, it makes me feel like they're trying to do this to intimidate me. I think the particular comet was I used to work for some good lawyers, and I don't like it when you know when other lawyers think that they could. You know that they can intimidate me by using legalese. And so I think a lot of people feel that way. And it's one of the things that with my first year law students that I always says, you know, how come you feel like you want to write this way? And one of the reasons elf often say is, well,

everything we read, you know, we usually start first year of law school law school reading old opinions that have this type of language in it, and they want to feel like they're part of the in crowd, you know, because they feel like they have imposter syndrome and those type of things. And so law school kind of perpetuates that. And so that's what I try and stem right at the beginning. Remember how you felt in obvious right before you came here and you had to look up every word, right? Your clients feel that way all the time. You now know these words, and so do you remember how you felt? Because that will help. You better connect with clients who are in the same boat you were before you started law school. For the most part,

if I could jump in it, Neil, I agree completely. It's the sort of you've been initiated into the lingo and you feel you have to use it to make it sound like you know what you're talking about. But then I think what that sin is a sort of superstition that if I don't use this, maybe I'm losing something. So I have to use this archaic language. If I if I don't, maybe something will fall off on a lot of. It's just sort of ignorance in not knowing why you could say it in a clearer way and not really digging into what the words mean and figuring it well, Do I really have to say witnesses at the beginning of a new agreement. You know, one other thought this is Jesse is is I think some of it might be a conscious attempt to to model a certain kind of sound. But I think some of it's also unconscious, and it's you not unique tow law. I think the more people become expert at what they do and you'll see this among educators or scientists or,

you know, academics. Uhm, you know, we all get searched, tainted by our our knowledge or cursed by our knowledge, and we forget what it's like not to know these things. So we start talking in a kind of jargon or or ah, a shorthand, that where we forget that our audience isn't on the same page.

I remember now. I started law school in 1995 and the thing that shocked me the most was I had, like, 80 pages of reading I needed to do before even showed up for my first class. And Chris, I think you you you mentioned it that you know what I read had probably been written in the 18 hundreds, and, you know, there was not only has English progress since then. But the amount of legalese that was in there. So I'm you know, you know what you know, and so you probably immediately think Well Oh, my God. I gotta write like this, too. In order in orderto pass this class,

right? And then that the curse of knowledge is point is really right on. I mean, I'm sure many of you here, and maybe you're some of your listeners have have heard of this book by Steven Pinker. A sense of style. And that's where he talks about the curse of knowledge as being part of the problem with academic writing. Doesn't focus on legal writing specifically, but on academic writing. And I think that is one thing. I think we all fall into that trap. Sometimes it's hard to unring the bell when we know something. But we have to put ourselves into this mindset of all right. Well, what what does an actual user. Somebody who's actually either ah, first level user or a secondary level user of whatever it is that I'm writing.

What don't they know that I So that's that's always what I try and do with him. But I'm ready. Okay, so I have a couple of questions for Neil and Chris, but but anybody, please feel free to kind of jump in if you have something to say about this is as well. So Neil, when when you think of the term legalese what comes to mind, and do you have some examples of some overly complicated communications that you've seen in the past? When people say that sounds like it was written by a lawyer, it's not generally intended as a compliment. I gave a sample that is from an actual letter received by a colleague. To be fair, I think the writer is about 85 practices in the small town in rural Canada. But it will give you a flavor of the kind of stuff you still see. We acknowledge your recent correspondence and attachment of the 29th instant with thanks same being forwarded here with Tow our client for reference and review,

with the writer confirming our telephone conversation of the 19th and your undertaking not to take steps to the detriment of our client without ample prior notice to the country being first given to a writer. Our client presently being in the process of retaining litigation. Counsel to deal here with with service being endorsed here with on the true coffee as requested. That's all one on you, like out taking a breath. So, you know, I'm impressed. Were what they hear with, in fact referred to. But you know, it Sze so funny too, because, I mean, I went to law school around the same time Greg did. And I remember there was a big focus on you have to take the legalese out of your writing.

And yet here we are, many years later, and it's still there, you know? Why're Why're people holding on to this? Not helpful. I mean, it went from lawyer to lawyer, so it's not as bad it goes. Lawyer to client. But I suspect this guy right this way to his clients. Well,

well, Sarah, did you understand what That what that letter said? I have to say I got lost. I can imagine the lawyer on the other and get lost too.

Yeah. So, Chris, in your research on legal communications, what is it that you found? That people, the people fear the most when it comes to legal communications. And I guess maybe that's on both sides, You know, the people who are writing and the people who are reading it right. That's exactly what I was when you said that. That's what I was thinking. This fear is it takes both sides, and I would say first we started already talking about the fear from the lawyer side is that we that were either leaving something out because we don't really understand the nuance of the word. And so instead of trying to understand what all of that means, well, let's just do what we've done in the past and what we've done in the past was passed down from what we've done in the past and what we've done in the past.

So at some point, somebody probably wrote what Neil just read it. Just read 100 years ago. You know, 80 years ago, especially if you had with these systems, you could just pull your bosses, you know, past contracts or past documents or whatever, or your firms, and then just pull things out. Is it kind of takes over for your thinking like, Well, I need something like this and this seems like it's something like this and so I don't think people really feel so. I think that's that's one of the fears is that they don't know all the nuance that somebody who came before them know. So they just kind of defer to how it was done rather than taking the time of thinking about how it were actually actually worked.

And then again, the fear of not fitting in as a lawyer and those type of things, that's that's the fear. I think on the well. You're on the human side, in the client's side of things. I think, uh, fear might not be. It really be the right word. We tend to think, I think his lawyers, that people fear are writing. But in fact, what I tend to find is people just don't care, right.

We get so much stuff in the middle. Let's say I do a lot of training for the for the Arkansas Office of Child Support Enforcement, and everybody who gets a letter from the Office of Child Support Enforcement hates that letter. They don't necessarily fear the letter. They just don't want to read it. It's the last thing they want to read. Even if you're positive you know that you're getting money, You're not gonna look at you. You're gonna read the letter. You gonna take the check and put it in your checking account. So I think fear is the wrong word. But I think they dread or just till I get this is something else that's on my plate that I have todo It's Marvin Annoyance. It's more of an annoyance that it makes it more complicated than it has to be It Yeah, it's like now I need to go, you know, call my friend,

that's a lawyer or get my own lawyer or look things up on the Internet if even figure out what any of that stuff means. And so you know, it's it's just gonna take me more time. I mean, I feel it that way, too, when I get an insurance document or I give something else that I just have to go through,

we all Yeah, I was just thinking of those prospectus or annual reports I get from investments that you know are one inch thick and and no one reads.

I just

hit him up for the most part. So, Jesse, that you have a very interesting position there. A tome El Vinnie in that, you know, one. You're not a lawyer. You've never been to law school as far as I know. But your firm hired you in order for you to help them improve their legal writing. So can you give us kind of just a little background on on what it is you do and what you offer there? A tome? El Vinnie?

Well, the my great skill set here is that I offer ignorance. All right. You know, hopefully I come with, you know, fresh eyes and, you know, a sharp ear. I I ask a lot of dumb questions, quite frankly. Like, Do we have to say it like this? Do we have to cite this thing? Is this argument a plausible argument or we just doing this out of there? Some obligatory need to include this. I have a big picture response and kind of more nuts and bolts thing.

The big pictures. I think lawyers are excellent at finding out the answer to really complicated questions. I work with very bright, high achieving people who, you know, research things and come up with creative solutions to really complicated high stakes legal challenges. But the muscles that go into finding that answer are really different from the muscles that go into explaining that answer. And so I find that a lot of people are really burdened by those complexities and and all the things that could go wrong. Although conditions and caveats you need to add to every sentence and in all that, just, you know, the legal implications of everything. And I would never want to suggest that I am fast and loose with any of that. But I don't carry the same burden. I can intervene either in a conversation or on the page asking are finding simpler ways of conveying these ideas. So I think the bigger sort of writing challenges people try to say too much convey too much material rather than focusing on. But what we really need to know, Why should I care what's at stake?

It kind of kind of reminds me of my my father in law. The story about he's really good at math. He's really poor at teaching math, and so he get. He jumps to the answer because he's already made certain leaps of understanding and goes to the answer. So do you find it's something similar to that? Do the lawyers jump, or do they overly explain? T get

to the answer? Yeah, I think they do. They do both. Quite frankly, I think there's an assumption that the court, whether it's a clerk or a judge, is like right with us is is as immersed in these issues as we are, cares about them as deeply as we are. We do and that we can just, like, sort of pick up the conversation wherever we left off. And and I think a lot of what I try to do is, Hey, look, let's remind people what this case is about. Let's remind them why they should care.

And let's remind them why, why we need to win on a sort of a more mechanical level. I think what I try to focus on are the images that allow the reader to see why are side should prevail very much against adjectives and adverbs that purport to be persuasive. If I see you know a a brief that has a lot of clear Lee's and Manifest lease and Patton, please. You know, uh, you're going to see my uh, my track changes all over that, and I guess I really urge people. And this is just good writing advice. No matter what field you're in is to show Don't tell, right. And that means focusing on on concrete actions. You know, What have we done, or what did we not do As opposed to trying to characterize that?

And Jesse is the service that you offer. Is it required or voluntary? What? How two people within your firm get to use your service?

Yeah, absolutely voluntary. I am. I'm a resource, as we now have two other editors who work here with me. You know, we're big law. So if everyone were required to use us, we'd be paralyzed right away. So it's really about kind of internal marketing in away building the relationships, you know, showing a attorney colleague what we can do and how they can fit us into their workflow. But I would say that the people who then work with us and kind of try us out and see what the results is gonna be. I think a light bulb goes off, and they're like, Oh, my God.

Why? Why wouldn't I use this person who is going to enhance the quality of the work. Take a load off of my plate on just make everything, hopefully make everything better without, you know, mucking things up. I don't think anyone views it as a negative or there's any stigma attached. It's just you if you reach out to an editor at all. Melanie, what you're really conveying is you care deeply about your writing and you're gonna take advantage is take advantage of all the resource is the firm has to help you achieve that goal. So do you think this sort of roll this editor sort of role is trending? And other firms, for example? I've heard of Firm's having writing consultants available to them, and then they work with the lawyers to improve their writing. So is this something that that you see growing?

I think there's maybe a growing appreciation that the caliber of of legal writing needs work. I think what I like about the my position here I dont Melvin is the people here are very smart, and they're so smart that they realize they don't know everything about writing, you know, they recognize some of their own limitations and I think other firms, other lawyers are getting on board with that, creating a position in bringing somebody in full time as part of the fabric and culture of the firm. I think that's a step that we haven't seen anyone else do. I could be wrong. Look. Oh, my Oh, Melvin has been around for more than 130 years. This position was created 10 years ago, and, you know,

for that first century plus Oh, Melanie somehow made it through, you know, without without any editing help, did they do it? And, uh, now there's three secret.

Did you say there's There's three editors?

Yeah, we We hired two new people last year, another one with me in our Los Angeles office and 1/3 editor in our New York office. But we're all available to anyone, anywhere

in the barren. Interesting. Well, Sarah, I I asked you to be on the show today. I kind of begged for you to be on the show today. Ah, for a couple of reasons. One was first of all, we had too many men on the show. So what? I want you to break that up a little bit and the the other is, is I actually was the one that hired Sara Toe to come work at the firm. And then she was she was stolen by someone that really loved her writing. And I remember him coming and saying that he loved the fact that you were able to take a very difficult and complex issue and explain it in in plain English and kind of tease knows it. So she writes, Ah,

so that even a lawyer can understand it and and he really agreed to that. So and really, that may not sound like a big deal, but it is, uh, it is hard to find lawyers that can actually write very well. We've heard Neil and Chris and Jesse talk, but, I mean, you're actually writing out these these briefs in letters to clients. So what is it that you do that you think makes it easy for others to understand the issues that you talk about? Sure. Uh, well, I think this is going to sound a pretty familiar, similar to what Jesse was talking about his goal being.

But for me, when I'm working on a piece of persuasive writing I tend to think of my goal as being twofold, sort of one to tell a story to a reader who probably doesn't otherwise care about the issue in my client, to keep them engaged and then to to solve my client's problem. And so in that framework, I think the biggest question to focus on is I. Why should the reader care about this? Why does this issue matter? Why should my client win? And then within that for me, it becomes much easier to just say what I mean. You know, whether that's synthesizing the issues in a way that aligns with the story and the theme or just, you know, in the more the fundamentals if you know where you're going and you know that those but those goals are with the focus always being, why should I care?

Why should I, the judge care, or the law clerk writing short, simple sentences, I think is always better. And I'm able to do that easier when I have that framework of moving from point A to point B. In trying to achieve those goals of keeping reader engaged and explaining why my client's perspective is the right one. I like the fact that it's about telling the story, but the second part of your of your answer, I think I like even more in that. It's not about let me tell you what you should know, but rather let me tell you why this this is important from from an angle that you one can understand it and two can appreciate it again. Sounds simple, but it's

not. It's it's interesting because it it the rules that Sarah's applying units very similar rules that you have in and broadcast, you know, keeping short, simple sentences that are easily understood focusing on you know, why should I care? Because, of course, you know they can turn you off and switch to something else in a heartbeat, so you have to capture their attention. So it's it's interesting that there's there's parallels there.

Do you see that, Jesse, since since you have a media back

room, I think that's very accurate, You know, I spent 15 years at the L A Times and then another nine years at Los Angeles magazine is a as a staff writer and, as you know, as a journalist year, you are constantly in a battle for your reader's attention, and I feel like every sentence has to have some little nugget that satisfies the reader, even if it's just a single word or, ah, bit of flourish in your punctuation or something that propels you forward. And then each paragraph has toe, you know, deliver something. And I think sometimes our legal documents are written with the idea that, well, somebody's gonna have to read this.

You know, they're getting paid to read this, And I'm always worried about when are they gonna stop reading? Like, I feel like saying something about, like, written flair or written bling? But I don't think that's quite right. I guess it's like, Is it like, Is it necessary? It's like, Well, maybe not. But, you know, you do have to sort of bring your own e. I don't know. You have to make a stand out somehow from the rest of what they're reading.

I think that's exactly right. I think I have been in situations where, you know, it seems like lawyers are afraid to make a brief interesting are afraid almost to give it that flare. But for me again, Yeah, you want to make sure that the whoever is reading your brief is gonna get to the end of it and is going to see the full picture. Um, and you know, if it you're have 25 aforementioned didn't pursue into and I mean, that just weighs it down so much, you're making it very hard for them to want to get through it and to get through it in a way that really shows the issues. And so I never shy away from making it a little bit fun or spicy is maybe also who

not quite the right word, but interesting. It's okay to be interesting. So new. And Chris, you've both written on the topic of writing and plain English, specifically when it comes to communicating to people who are not lawyers. And perhaps my favorite quote comes from Neil's overview of his book, where he says that readers of lawyers work might describe it as ter jin pin dan tick, Latin filled, jargon ridden, mis spelt, ungrammatical and in elegant catch. So I think if we're being honest, I think the judges and the other lawyers may think the same way with some of the writing out there So, Neil, I'd like to start with you.

When? When a lawyer is communicating with his or her client, who's not a lawyer, what are some of the basic writing principles that they should keep in mind? Well, this goes back to what others have said already. Just try to avoid the temptation to do the dump of all the information that you've got in your head or that you found to your research. You know, by all means put that into your memo to file, but think not about you. Hey, lawyer, It's not about you. It's about your client. Think with clients. After they want an answer,

they want advice. They want a risk assessment. But so think of what the purpose of the writing is. But I also think of who the reader is. If it's another lawyer, that's a different sort of question. But if it's someone who's a business person, someone with only a high school education, someone whose first language isn't English, you think about what it is that you're trying to convey. The challenge can be that you'll have multiple audiences, so you have to kind of pitch it somewhere in the middle on that could be difficult to achieve. But always think about not you, but about the recipient. And that's really I think, the best of us I can give.

I wonder, Do you think there's times where a lawyer might not be equipped in terms of of the right language in terms of communicating with with their client? You know, you mentioned a business client. Well, if if they don't have a business background, are they equipped? If they don't know sort of common terms and, you know, for for their client, you know, may they not be equipped? Sometimes not. That's often the case, but if you've been advising business clients for long enough, you do come to learn their language,

and you could become more comfortable with it. But sometimes that's right. You won't have the technical knowledge or vocabulary to talk intelligently to your clients. In some cases, it may be, the lawyer is at a disadvantage, and you've gotta educate yourself to the extent that you can and Chris and your empirical study on this topic. What are some of the common issues that you found from the public when it comes to understanding the writings of attorneys. Well, yeah, I mean, that's just kind of going off of what Neil said. I always say there's There's really three things when we're thinking about writing for the public or writing for clients. I mean, with individual clients, you kind of get to know him,

and you can come further segment that population a little bit, based on what they're likely to Milan, what they're likely not to know when you're writing for the public, which I do a lot of now. Broad documents, let's say, for government agencies or research studies, you know that we want to get a very group of folks and we need consent forms. You know, there's really three things there's, there's purpose, there's audience, and then there's problems. You know, lawyers were really good at problems. We poke holes in things.

We try and figure things out. That's what we're taught when we think about, you know, contract drafting, their legal writing. You know, it's like figure out problems and solve them. That's that's what we're good at. But we're not very good at purpose, an audience, and by purpose I mean more than just your individual purpose. As as a lawyer. It's what's the client's purpose? What's the purpose of the you know of your agency? Let's say you're you're in that house lawyer for a government agency. Your particular company or agency will have different purposes that are different than yours.

And so we can do more than just cover the problems and then with audience, often think about this. And I tell my students, This is like with appellate briefs. You know, our with appellate arguments. We moved the heck out of things in practice, the arguments in those type of things. But we don't ever practice the briefs. Try the brief cell with our intended audiences, right? So how about we loot briefs? You don't have random people sitting judge, and you know, and read them and think about what you would think if you were this particular judge those type of things from a litigation perspective, but from contract and kind of this public document perspective what I've learned a lot,

and this had nothing to do with possible. This was after law school about user testing and usability testing, and most lawyers don't know anything about that and how to do it well. But when We're talking about high stakes documents, you know, like, let's say the Judy PR consent forms and help People are going to use them, you know, on a website or or advanced directives. You know, people are gonna be actually right kind of signing their life away literally. These are high stakes documents that we need to involve the audience that actually get their input on things. Because we can learn so much. We don't know what We don't know it. Just like, you know,

the curse of knowledge is that this is the curse of the heavy. We can learn things. I've never not learned something from user testing documents with people that I have done problem probably 100 times now, over the last few years since I've been at the medical school, and, uh, I always learn something, you know? So that's something I don't think lawyers appreciate, and we can really leave it in, probably more so in the public document realm than the litigation round. But getting some of that audience perspective, but you can make a huge

difference very shiny. I never thought about that about user testing the document. Very interesting.

We do it all the time. You know, we do it all the time with websites. We don't get again with everything, but we don't do it somehow. Do it with legal document and I actually, I fight a lot with people who about this. I'm really good at fighting with other lawyers about this. But picture a 10,000 person academic medical center that has a whole group of lawyers, and and I have a lawyer, but I don't I don't work in that department. And so I'm often fighting for OK, we have this advanced directive. What? We're really trying to do it to redo it because we are Arkansas safety in that hospital. And so we know people with very little to no literacy skills were going to be using the stocking. And Dr So and so wants every single U.

M s patient to have ah advanced directive. By 2025 we have to plan for the marginalized people a swell, and so we're going to need to bring them in. So we understand what works for them and what doesn't. And when I brought in like the first generation, I remember this one patient person saying if you gave me this document and I came in for, like, a routine checkup, I would think I'm gonna die. And I was like, Okay, now I really need You know, that really meant something to me. Was like, How am I going to lead into this with the instruction page? Like,

this is preventative, You know, this type of things, but but those are things that I wasn't really thinking about it. So I learned a lot just by getting that input.

But Jesse and Sarah, I know you both do a lot of editing, and so that gives you a chance to look at a lot of other writing samples from other lawyers. Sarah, I'll ask you, Are there some common errors or bad habits that you've seen that seemed to be consistent across the lawyers work that you've edited? Yes. Ah, many bad habits. I would say, Um, I have some myself, a big one. And I think, Ah, an easy one to fix or one of the easier one suffix would be passive voice. I think people understand what that is pretty easily when you point it out to them without ah you know getting into the nuances of grammar and word choice.

It's one that I think if you're writing quickly, you fall into passive voice pretty easily. So that's a big one. And also, you know, saying five words when two or three or one will do, Ah, as to whether or not, you know, just say whether or in order to just say, too. I think those are really common ones and relatively easy to to fix it. You're working on improving your fighting style. And Jesse, let me let me ask you the same question. But I wanna twisted just a little bit in that.

Do you think there's some generational habits that you've seen? I have written down here that, you know Boomer's right in a passive style or millennials Forget to capitalize and use punctuation because they're used to texting. And but, you know, of course, Marly and I always agree that us Gen Xers right, right, real good. So we're good. So do you see any any generational differences, especially if any of those differences air due to the technology that they learn toe actually. Right

on. Yeah, I can't say that. I've seen you know, a text or chat culture seep into legal documents. But but the one generational, I'd say a line in the sand is how many spaces go after? Yes, very hotly contested Ishan at Oh, Melvin A. I created a newsletter when I first got here toe just sort of introduce myself to the firm and share some writing tips, and I I pointed out to everybody that I'm not here to change your habits. I'm not. I'm not gonna I'm not gonna. I'm not on a crusade to get rid of two spaces after a period. But let me just going out that in the civilian world in the publishing world, nobody does this on.

And I think our younger attorneys, they get that there came of age and the word processing era. You know, where you just There's no mechanical reason to put two spaces after a period. And anyone who came of age who learned to type actually on a typewriter was probably taught two spaces after after a period. And that was truly just the mechanical limitations of how the key hits Paige and Microsoft. Word has has solved that for

all of us. I was actually a to space or person because I did learn on a typewriter. But it was a book that I read There was actually by the O'Connors publishing here in Texas, called typography for lawyers and at

your butter

can take, And it actually showed an example of what the two spaces do on a page in it that river flow. And so that was, you know, I had to visualize what it actually looked like. The difference between two spaces and one with today's with the type Aga fee that we use typeface that we used today. And there was a difference.

I show that to my students all the time, and it really you know, I don't think there is. There is in all about it like like I was went with you as well. I learned on the typewriter, and Sister Bertha would come around and almost hit our hands if we didn't have her hands up right. And so my only problem to two spaces. The one space now is I can't stop my thumb from automatically doing it. So I have to find and replace all the time. You know, the other area where I think technology sometimes inhibits us a little bit, is encouraged lawyers to get away from their keyboard and from their screen. Because I think of that is kind of like our That's like our multitasking dashboard, and it's really hard to be creative. And and that's part of what we're asking for. You know, even if you're writing a motion to dismiss in a securities fraud action,

you still need to be creative about how you're gonna approach that. What is the story you're gonna tell? And maybe the best way to start that process of figuring out what your theme is this a step away from the computer and maybe take a walk? Oh, our, ah, go to a conference room and just somewhere where the chimes and buzzers air not constantly breaking your concentration. And I often share with our younger attorneys some of the rituals that famous writers and creative people have had, whether it's, um, you know, I, uh, think, ah, Gertrude Stein used to soak in a bath tub or something,

and maybe I have that confused with somebody else. Uh, everyone's got their, you know, uh oh CD ah rituals. But you know what? They all do is, um, sort of allow us to step off the merry go round of things, competing for our attention and go off in a, I don't know, sort of like a dream place, which may sound incredibly impractical if you're in an environment where people are building in six minute increments. Is there time for that? Is that too much of a luxury? But and and obviously you wouldn't want to spend hours and hours and hours lost in your own thoughts. But if you don't devote any time to just thinking creatively and maybe doing a free right on on a legal pad, your your writing is gonna have that very kind of road paint by the numbers quality.

I think that's a great point. I think that this same or similar concept could be applied in the editing side of it, too. You know, once you're done, no matter how many times I read through something on the computer screen, if I don't print it out and read it on paper or, you know sometimes even read sections allowed, I find, you know it just makes a huge difference. Catch errors that were saying a sentence allowed you think I would never? You know, that doesn't sound natural. That doesn't sound right. Or, you know, that's just grammatically incorrect. I think that's a great way to toe Polish

things towards the end. Yeah, I do that same thing. It's if you read it out loud in the booth, that's no good I'm gonna do that against. So I'm gonna put this out for everybody. What air? Some resource is out there that you'd suggest lawyers used that would help them become better writers. Do you think some of the tech tools out there like, you know, brief catch or word rate? Graham early. Perfect it. And maybe even some of those concepts search tools and he discovery will make legally, he's a thing of the past. Or is it something much more simple than that? So I could jump in its Neil as a Canadian unburied,

hesitant to recommend those software tools because they promote us spelling and usage, which doesn't always You gotta know your audience, right? I think plain language for lawyers is one of the best by Richard Plain English for lawyers. Richard. Why that is it winter? I don't you? Yeah. Yeah, and It's Scott. There's a new edition of it I published after his death, he said. Richard Wittig, Richard. Why Dick W. Wide the United See?

OK, OK, and it's I use it a lot with my students. I haven't not using it this year, but probably the 1st 10 years I used that. There's some really good exercise in there, too. Are you somebody matching butter Ex book type of your future lawyers? I think that's really Ah, good one from the look and feel of things. Like we said, it's more than just the two space tow one space. But just that really makes me think a lot about how it made me think anyway, how a lot of documents should look. It's more than just words, you know,

if you can have. And I showed my students a lot of my contractor after in class this a lot, I could I could have the clearest words in short sentences. But if I put him in one really long paragraph in 10 point fund Mm. I show him an example of a credit card agreement that does this. Nobody's gonna want to read it because nobody even wants to to devote the mental energy to even see if that that's even worth reading, because it just looks so daunting. So s I really like that typography for lawyers as well. I like anything about information, design and user experience, letting go of the words by Jenny Reddish G I. And then wide from Harvard. It's This is all about Web, right? But so many things about Web riding on that are so applicability to what we do illegal writing as well. And I think a lot of folks we focus a lot on the word and the structure and those type of things. But there's just so much more to usability than just the words. That's that's what I tend to focus on a lot.

Sara, let me, uh, kind of wrap this up. But I did want to take this. If you If you are looking at a document, either it's ah, lawyer or a client or a judge, and you're not understanding it. What? What should you do? What kind of feedback should you give? Especially if if you're paying, see if your client and you're not understanding it, what should you? What should

you do when you're paying by the minute

30 76 minutes. Yeah, I I think you know, if a client is they're in there with a document. Memo or e mail is more common, I think, from, ah, their lawyer and thinking, I don't know what this means were What is my lawyer trying to tell me at at the end of the day, I think we failed in doing our job. And I would certainly advocate for the clients not to sit there and think, you know, Ah, I must not be very smart or, you know, my lawyer's trying to make me not feel very smart,

but go back to them and say this isn't clear. This doesn't make sense. Or what are you trying to say? Um and that could be a really, you know, a real light bulb moment, I think a slightly different context. But several years ago, I was talking with a friend and I said something about you. No quid pro quo today. We you know, we've all heard that word. Ah, ah. 100 times. I guess we all know what it means.

I think we know what it means, But, um, she said I don't know what that means. What are you saying? And it It was ah, jarring, I guess for me Because Because I know what it meant and it. But it was one of those moments where, you know, I had the realization that I surround myself with lawyers all day, every day. My husband is a lawyer, you know, sort of My whole world is is about lawyers and weaken very much. Forget who our audiences.

So I would certainly encourage clients to say, you know, to speak up. I think that's Ah, absolutely. Ah, their right to expect better writing from us. All right. Well, Neil and Chris and Jesse and Sarah, uh, want to thank you all for being here. This is I've really enjoyed this. So thanks for joining us today.

Yeah. Thank you very much. It's been a really stimulating conversation. Now have a bunch of books to read. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Well, I had to say that this was one of my favorite discussions that we've done so. It's good. Yeah. There's just great advice not only for legal writing, but for, you know, for writing and communication in general. I did write down one of Sarah Harris is comments where she said, to make sure that you are telling a story. And that story is from a perspective that will tell the reader why the story matters. So you have to answer the reader's question of So what? So what does it matter to me?

What's in it for me? What's in it for me? What's

in it for me or why? Why should this matter to me,

Right, right. I agree. So many good takeaways in this one and the idea of panel reviews for draft documents. Yeah, that's brilliant, because this plays out time and time again. None of us is a smart as all of us, and that T shirt already exists. A marketplace dot com

Alright, so thanks again to our guest today We had Neil Guthrie from Aired and Bears Chris Trudeau from the University of Arkansas, Little Rock, Jesse Katz from Oh, Melanie and Sara Harris from Jackson Walker. I definitely think they gave us a lot to think

about when it comes to our own writing. Indeed. Uh, yeah. So before we go, we want remind listeners to take the time to subscribe on apple podcasts, Spotify or wherever. Galician to podcasts. Rate and Review. It's a swell if you have comments about today's show or suggestions for a future show. You can reach us on Twitter at at Gabe, our M or a Glam Bert, or you can call the Geek a review hotline at 7134877270 or you can email us at. You can review podcast at gmail dot com. And as always, the wonderful music you hear is from Jerry David Just Sica. Thank you, Jerry.

Thanks, Jerry. Alright, Marlene. I would talk to you later. All right, that's a way Devils Devils back.