Vermont Bar Journal, Vol. 40, No. 2 Fall 2014, Vol. 40, No. 3 | Page 37

by Greg Johnson, Esq.

Sweat the Small Stuff
The Legal Writing Program at Vermont
Law School is well into its second year of
columns for the Vermont Bar Journal. In
that time, we have covered “big picture”
considerations like using principles from
classical rhetoric to aid persuasion, to more
practical advice on style and format. In my
last column, I explained how humility is an
essential component of persuasion. In this
column, I will turn from the grand to the
granular, by offering concrete, rather easily
applied rules of line editing that, taken together, can improve your writing from the
ground up.
For the accomplished writer, these rules
will turn a polished product into something
close to perfection. For the novice writer,
they can serve as building blocks to better writing. They can help build confidence
when the challenges of communicating
clearly in writing prove daunting. These
rules may seem trivial, but no detail is too
small when it comes to excellence in legal writing. Turning an adage on its head,
I believe you should sweat the small stuff
in legal writing. Tending to enough small
details can make your writing look more
professional and, in time, even eloquent.
Sweat the small stuff and, almost magically,
the big things start to take care of themselves.
Avoid Beginning Sentences with
“There is” or “It is”

to point out you can start a sentence with
“There is” or “It is” if the phrases actually refer to something (“The summons arrived this morning. It is on your desk.”). In
fact, in this context, “It is” helps establish
rhythm and flow. If, however, the phrase
does not refer to something in particular,
it adds nothing and simply “points off into
the fog somewhere.”2 So, turn “It is obvious that the summons was not properly
served” into “The officer did not serve the
summons properly.” This revision is stronger because it puts meaningful words (the
subject and verb) at the start of the sentence, it is in the active voice, and it eliminates a modifier (see below).
Implicit in this simple rule—eliminate
throat-clearing phrases at the start of a sentence—are profound considerations about
maximizing the meaning of every word in
every sentence. That is a big idea, and can
be scary to novice writers. Start small. Find
and eliminate the “There is/It is” constructions. In doing so, you will improve the
overall design and impact of your sentences. This shows the transforming effect of
sweating the small stuff. By just eliminating
throat-clearing phrases, you will shorten
sentences, eliminate nominalizations, write
in the active voice and make your sentences clearer and more dynamic. Imagine what
will happen when you apply a multitude of
these “trivial” rules to your sentences.

Avoid Using “Clearly” and “Very”

These are two of the most overused
words in legal writing.3 Worse still, they
risk alienating the reader. The reader senses you are telling her how to react, rather than allowing her to reach your suggested conclusion on her own. Style manuals
call words like this “hackneyed intensifiers” and “conclusion-begging words.”4 As
one explains, “A lawyer who wants to convey the idea that his conclusion clearly follows had better present his material in such
a way that his reader can quickly and easily come to that conclusion, and not merely tell him that it is clear.”5 Convince your
reader your position is correct through ineluctable logic, rather than by shouting at
him that you are “clearly correct.”
A quote attributed to Mark Twain cautions against using the word “very.” Tradition has it he said, “Substitute ‘damn’
every time you’re inclined to write ‘very;’
your editor will delete it and your writing
will be just as it should be.”6 This aphorism
is funny but true. Take Twain up on his suggestion. On your next draft, replace every
“very” with “damn.” Then, acting as your
own editor, delete every “damn.” You have
just strengthened your writing. The problem with “very” is that “it has become so
worn out from overuse that it no longer
packs even a powder-puff punch.”7 You can
solve the problem, as Twain suggests, by

I said this would be granular. Too often,
we begin sentences with “throat clearing”
phrases that add words, but not meaning.
“There is,” “There are,” and “It is” are examples of such phrases. The beginning
of any sentence is valuable property. You
should reserve it, in most instances, for the
subject and verb of the sentence.1 Starting
sentences with throat-clearing phrases delays the action of the sentence for no good
reason. “There is a presumption that statutes are constitutional” is a perfectly acceptable and oft-written sentence. Applying this simple rule turns it into “Courts
presume statutes are constitutional.” The
second sentence is more dynamic. It names
the actor and the action (subject/verb)
right at the start. Applying the rule has also
shortened the sentence from eight words
to five. Finally, applying the rule has eliminated a nominalization (the plodding “presumption” becomes the livelier verb “presume”).
Eliminating the “There is/It is” construction is standard advice in legal writing
texts. Those offering this advice are quick
www.vtbar.org

THE VERMONT BAR JOURNAL • FALL 2014

37