Excellent legal analysis. Now make it 40 percent shorter

Brevity and simplicity are essential to good legal writing. They make writing clear and forceful. They keep readers' attention, a task that is harder in this age of smart phones and 24-hour news cycles. Straightforward writing exudes confidence and intelligence. Writers with a direct style appear more thoughtful and insightful than those who rely on jargon or excessive modifiers.

When I started law school, I paid no attention to how many words I used to convey legal analysis. In this computer age, there were no barriers to typing long exam answers. But in my second year of law school, one of my professors opened my eyes to the power of brevity. He asked for a short blog post about a recent judicial decision. I wrote the blurb in a couple hours and handed it in. After quickly reading my work, he said: "Good. Now cut the length down by about 40 percent without losing any content."

What? How?

I rephrased sentences, removed adverbs and adjectives, picked better words and reorganized to make unambiguous use of pronouns. I wrestled with the task for longer than it took to write the blurb in the first place. But the end result was punchier, more direct and easier to read. Ever since that project I have focused on brevity in my writing. Removing excess words and using plain, simple language is now an essential step in my editing process.

There are many ways to achieve brevity. One important way is to think critically about what is essential and what is not. You can then apply the following basic rules to that essential content. The rules have exceptions, but they generally result in cleaner, easier-to-read prose.

Avoid Passive Voice

Every law student has heard about the evils of passive voice. Loosely speaking, passive voice focuses on actions instead of actors. For example, writing "the ball was thrown by Brian" rather than "Brian threw the ball." The former is passive voice, the latter is active voice. Active voice is snappy and engaging. Passive voice is unassertive, wordy and harder to parse. In this example, active voice eliminated two unnecessary words and conveyed the idea more directly.

The principle applies equally to legal writing. Consider the following two sentences:

* On Dec. 12, 2015, a summary judgment motion was filed by plaintiff, in which it was argued that plaintiff had conclusively proved liability and that defendant could not raise a genuine issue of fact to the contrary. [37 words]

* On Dec. 12, 2015, plaintiff filed a summary judgment motion arguing he had conclusively proved liability and that defendant could not raise a genuine issue of fact to the contrary. [30 words]

The first is long, unassertive and difficult to parse, while the second is shorter and easier to read. One can eliminate passive voice in all but the rarest circumstances, such as when the actor is unknown. In general, use active voice.

Use Simple Language and Avoid Jargon

Do not use legalese, jargon or Latin phrases unless there is no plain-language equivalent. Even for lawyers and judges, these words and phrases can be jarring and off-putting. Plain-language equivalents are often shorter and easier to comprehend.

Lawyers have a bad habit of clinging to bulky language that sounds "lawyerly." Lengthier phrases come naturally after years of reading old judicial opinions and recycled contract templates, but they are unnecessary and distract from substance. Whenever possible, use the simplest phrase to express your idea: "if," "while" and "now" rather than "in the event that," "during such time as" and "at this point in time."

Many lawyers also overuse Latin phrases and other legal jargon. Some such phrases are so established and common that there is no choice but to use them (e.g., pro bono, certiorari, de novo, habeas corpus). Others, though, are included only out of laziness or a misguided desire to sound lawyerly. An extensive list of such phrases is available at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Latin_legal_terms. For clarity, avoid them.

Use Active Verbs, Don't "Noun-ify" Them

For some reason, lawyers often prefer to "do" a noun rather than use a verb. For example, legal writers often use "conduct an examination" when it is shorter and more direct to simply use "examine." Or they might use "provide a description" or "take under consideration" instead of the simpler "describe" and "consider." The former phrases are long, clumsy and stilted, whereas the latter are lively and engaging. Use active verbs unless you have a good reason not to.

Minimize Adverbs, Adjectives and Redundant Words

Another source of wasted space is unnecessary adjectives, adverbs and other words. In legal briefs, the most frequent offenders are "obviously" and "clearly." If something is obvious or clear, you needn't say so; and if it is not obvious or clear, saying so will only raise skepticism. Adjectives and adverbs used for emphasis, such as "very," "extremely" or "completely" are often unnecessary as well. For example, when something is "irrelevant" it adds nothing to say it is "completely irrelevant." But even where emphasis is important, one can often find a better noun or verb that makes the adjective or adverb superfluous. "Very scared," for example, could be replaced with "terrified." Or "extremely simple" could be replaced with "elementary" or "unmistakable." Using unique and meaningful words, in addition to eliminating unnecessary modifiers, can add punch to your writing.

Reading legal writing is always a chore, but these and other tools can make that chore less unpleasant by increasing brevity and readability. Practice using them as part of your editing process. Over time they will become second nature, and your writing will be clearer, punchier and more efficient.

Jeff Fisher is a senior associate in Dechert LLP's Intellectual Property group. His practice focuses on patent and trademark litigation.