Legal Writing in Plain English: A Text With Exercises

Bryan A. Garner is leading what might be a Quixotic charge to make lawyers write clear, clean, unambiguous and even interesting prose. This book is a recent addition to the Garner arsenal, which includes the excellent The Winning Brief and A Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage. The anonymous writer from New York who slams Garner is wrong. He claims that traditional legal drafting has stood the test of time and is readily understood by judges, who ultimately have to interpret it. If the writing were clear to begin with, the parties wouldn't get to a judge. They'd likely settle. And that writer ignores the fact that there are thousands, perhaps millions, of legal decisions over contract disputes, almost all arising from documents that were "traditionally drafted." And different judges can decide differently about the meaning of a clause. That writer askes rhetorically whether Garner would insist that mathematicians use prose to make their work clear to laypeople. The rhetoric ignores the fact that mathematics is its own language. Legal writing is written in English, the same English used to buy groceries, talk lovingly to your spouse, and complain to the doctor about what ails you. There is no valid reason a contract should be beyond the comprehension of a layperson, other than lawyers' need to feel like they're elevated professionals with a grip on arcana. And the writer's praise of "Notwithstanding anything to the contrary" as an incantatory phrase in contracts overlooks an obvious improvement: "DESPITE anything in this agreement to the contrary . . . ." Garner is a brilliant, insightful teacher who cares deeply about the language and its highest and best use. We know what happens with legalese: litigation and contention and noncomprehension. Give plain English a try, with Garner as your guide to Aquinas's trinity of wholeness, harmony, radiance, and of course clarity clarity clarity.

The point of Garner's book is to write for the reader. This book would be helpful to any lawyer, if only because it forces us to think about how and why we are writing. Too often, writers treat style manuals as if they were infallible--written on stone tablets by a divine author. Garner's book is not perfect and cannot be applied with a thoughtless rigor. As an appellate lawyer, I generally try to follow Garner's style, but sometimes it doesn't fit. The corporate lawyer who complained about the book did not read it closely enough. Garner opposes thoughtless attachment to legalese, but he acknowledges that sometimes legal writers have to use terms of art. He also urges writers to be concise. I don't know where the corporate lawyer got the idea that Garner advocates "two pages of easily accessible prose over two sentences of conventional drafting," but it is not from this book.Accept or reject Garner's advice as you wish, but thinking about clear writing will make you a better lawyer. Most of what Garner writes is common sense, but it's common sense legal writers often lack.

Quit searching -- this is the best book on legal writing that you will find. It is outstanding.I am an attorney in Texas, and I have attended two of Mr. Garner's legal-writing seminars. He is currently the leading authority on legal writing; he is also an engaging speaker. His approach is to eliminate legalese and to present a powerful and succinct message. This approach has a very practical foundation -- over the years, Mr. Garner has polled judges across the country to see which writing elements they prefer. This volume distills Mr. Garner's findings into a compact, 227-page format. The book also contains model documents -- a research memorandum, a legal motion, an appellate brief, and a business contract -- which serve as excellent reference tools for the legal practitioner.Put simply, if you don't subscribe to Mr. Garner's advice, you don't know how to write well. And this book is the best way yet to access to Mr. Garner's valuable insight. This book is an ESSENTIAL reference tool.