Constructing clearer sentences for clearer writing

Writing plainly and concisely may require time and effort on the part of the writer. The reader is the first to enjoy the rewards of this effort, though, as they find it easier to read. The writer enjoys the benefits that come from convincing a reader and leaving a lasting impression.

—–

LEGAL writing is in the dock today, accused of being incomprehensible to the layperson. A key element of the indictment is that the sentences are overly long, complex, and phrased in a confusing manner. In this article, we look at ways to stop being accomplices in this felony.

A sentence is the most basic unit of language that conveys meaning. Clear writing, thus, necessarily consists of clear sentences. When sentences convey points lucidly and emphatically, the writing as a whole becomes convincing.

Unclear writing runs the risk of misinterpretation. We don't have to try too hard to imagine the scope for mischief when documents of great consequence are littered with sentences that cannot be easily parsed. Our courts are filled with disputes which often turn on the interpretation of a complicated sentence in a statute, government order, or a document filed in court by a litigant.

The more effort a reader must expend to understand a text, the less likely they are to remain fully focused till they reach the end. Hence, they are less likely to retain what they've read. Concepts conveyed clearly leave a lasting impression.

Also read: Why lawyers must take to writing

It is necessary, then, that we look for ways to construct sharp, effective sentences. The following five tips will go a long way in ensuring that your sentences are easily understood:

I. Shorter sentences

The British TV comedy Yes Minister often features speech length sentences by the character Humphrey Appleby. The monologues are funny because they poke at the officiousness of bureaucracy and often depict a deliberate attempt at obfuscation by the character who delivers it. The inability of the Minister to comprehend these sentences is also played up for laughs. This satiric device captures much that is wrong with official communication. The annoyance caused by the sheer length of the sentences is immediately apparent.

The attention span of the average reader may not be ready for sentences longer than 20-25 words. The average judge is far more experienced than the average reader. The judge is also more committed to reading the brief, than a lay reader. But lawyers would do well to cut short sentences where possible. Keep in mind that we should make it easy for someone who is reading what is probably their 60^th file of the day!

This is not to say that your drafts should be filled only with short sentences. A staccato rhythm may make the brief look like a pile of disjunctive ideas, or a telegraphed bulletin, rather than the presentation of an argument borne of intellectual analysis.

A short sentence carries force when it is deployed amongst long sentences. While no sentence should be too long to grasp, the longer sentences within acceptable ranges may be used to set the context and build your argument. Use short sentences for the denouement.

II. Subject-verb association

The essential ingredients of a sentence are the Subject, Verb, and Object. The core of the meaning conveyed by a sentence is contained in how these ingredients relate to each other.

Sentences with many caveats, exceptions, and provisos are ubiquitous in the legal world.

Consider this clause from a lease agreement :-

"The lessor shall, subject to any deductions towards bills due to be payable for consumption of electricity, water, cooking gas, or usage of common areas and facilities, damages to fixtures and equipment, and conditional upon the handing over of vacant peaceful possession of the demised premises prior to the end of the notice period mentioned hereinabove, after adjusting the unpaid rent of the last month of occupancy, return to the lessee the security deposit amount paid at the time of commencement of the lease."

The sentence covers the usual circumstances at the time of ending a lease. But the reader needs to make some effort to follow the sentence structure. The structure of the clause obscures the relationship between the subject (lessor) and the verb (return).

Entire fields of inquiry – the interpretation of statutes and the interpretation of contracts, among others. – are dedicated to the study of such linguistic acrobatics. In trying to make each sentence a self-contained code on a point of law, we end up losing focus on the main thrust of the sentence.

It is easy to first grasp a broad concept, and then understand all the ifs and buts that the general statement may be subject to. Likewise, a well-structured sentence sets out the relationship between the subject, verb, and object. The special circumstances where the relationship may vary can be explained separately.

Also read: Legal Language and Linguistics

III. Active voice and passive voice

The facts section of a brief, judgment, or opinion contains a narration of events to which the principles of law involved will be applied. The facts section should be brief and cover all material events. If it manages to portray the events in a story arc fashion, it will be more compelling and can possibly sway the court in its favour even before the legal arguments are made. Sentences written in active voice do the heavy lifting in this portion of the brief.

Active voice, by its very structure, is more direct. Studies have shown that people tend to believe things written in active voice.

But do not take away from this that everything should be written in an active voice. Passive voice has its uses.

The focus of rule forming sentences in legal writing is often what ought to be done rather than who ought to do it. The presumption is that everybody ought to follow the rule. Passive sentences do better in such situations.

Passive voice is also useful when you need to be deliberately vague. You may sometimes describe events without attributing any action to anybody.

Use active voice wherever possible and passive voice wherever necessary.

IV. Simple sentences, compound sentences, and complex sentences

Sentences can be classified into three categories based on the clause structure.

• Simple sentence: A sentence with one independent clause. E.g. Petitioner should file an Application in Form A.
• Compound sentence: A sentence with two independent clauses. E.g. Petitioner should file an Application in Form A, and should also file an Affidavit under Form B.
• Complex sentence: A sentence with one or more dependent clauses. E.g. When the petitioner files an Application in form A, they should also file an Affidavit under Form B.

Complex and compound sentences play an important role in legal writing. Our legislation is full of compound-complex sentences with several dependent clauses. Take for example a subsection on which a recent major decision of the Supreme Court turned: –

Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – "(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), in case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), where an award under the said section 11 has been made five years or more prior to the commencement of this Act but the physical possession of the land has not been taken or the compensation has not been paid the said proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed and the appropriate Government, if it so chooses, shall initiate the proceedings of such land acquisition afresh in accordance with the provisions of this Act."

The rights of hundreds of people hinged on whether the 'or' highlighted in the extract really ought to be read as "nor" or "and".

It is impossible, and even undesirable, to avoid complex sentences altogether. We can, however, organise clauses in a way that makes dependencies clear.

V. Avoid unnecessary fillers

Legal spoken and written conventions are rife with unnecessary fillers such as "it is to be noted that", "because the…", "it cannot be gainsaid that", "as such…" and so on.

Much legal writing is meant to implore a higher authority, such as a court, to grant some relief. In such pleadings, these fillers take some obsequious forms such as "It is most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass an order directing the respondent…" rather than "The Court is requested to direct the respondent…".

Some of these have gotten so ingrained in our language that we may routinely read them without imbibing their meaning. They do occupy some mind space, nonetheless, and make the text longer than it ought to be.

Also read: Indian English, legal English and legal Indian English

American writer Mark Twain is quoted as saying, "I did not have time to write a short letter. So I wrote a long letter instead." Writing plainly and concisely may require time and effort on the part of the writer. The reader is the first to enjoy the rewards of this effort, though, as they find it easier to read. The writer enjoys the benefits that come from convincing a reader and leaving a lasting impression.

Learning to write plainly requires even more effort as it involves a significant amount of unlearning. I hope the tips above aid your efforts in that direction.