It's the one thing all of the Supreme Court justices agree on -- briefs are too long. Bryan A. Garner has published the transcripts of his interviews with eight of the nine justices (Justice Souter did not participate). Garner has put the videos of the interviews on his website for several years as a public service. This New York Times article by Adam Liptak is a nice summary of some the justices' thoughts on legal writing.

A legal-writing blog that I follow recommended Matthew Butterick's Typography for Lawyers. (Ray Ward's blog is called the (new) legal writer.) One of the publishing conventions that lawyers don't follow is to put one space between sentences. Every magazine that you read and all the authorities recommend using only one space instead of two. Our habit of putting two spaces after a sentence is a dated typewriter practice that creates rivers of of white space when using a computer. Compare some of your work with one space and see if you can tell the difference.

Having trouble with a sentence or paragraph? Read it aloud. I have read--and can't find the source right now--that every professional writer does this. And are not lawyers  professional writers? If your prose feels clunky or awkward, your ear will tell you and often suggest a fix as well. Our most famous Illinois lawyer did this as a matter of course. Lincoln loved to read aloud as soon as he learned how to read. “I can always tell more about a thing after I’ve heard it read aloud, and know how it sounds.” (The Eloquent President, by Ronald C. White, Jr.) Writer Jonathan Franzen was profiled in piece in the August 23rd issue of Time. Lev Grossman noted that Franzen is "often hoarse by the end of the day because he performs his dialogue out loud as he writes it. (This may account for its strikingly naturalistic quality.)" I got an old copy of Barbara Tuchman's Practicing History Selected Essays off the shelf to take to the used book sale bin at Lincoln Library. As I was flipping through the pages, I noted that I had highlighted these sentences by Tuchman years ago: "After seven years' apprenticeship in journalism, I discovered than an essential element for good writing is a good ear. One must listen to the sound of one's own prose. This, I think, is one of the failings of much American writing. Too many writers do not listen to the sound of their own words." (Page 16) I can't say that I read everything aloud, but if it is important or I'm having trouble with a chunk of text, I do. And it works. Try it.

Rodney P. Moore has written a nice article in this summer's issue of the Arkansas Lawyer summarizing the results of his survey of  Arkansas judges on legal writing. Although it is not online yet, I assume it will be soon. Judges are the primary readers of our work, so it may be productive to review Mr. Moore's summary of his survey.

1. Too long, too long, too long. "More is less."
2. "Get to the point and stay there."
3. "Introductions and substantive headings are helpful."  This helps judges get their arms around the issues.
4. No vitriol. To paraphrase Justice Ginsburg in her Lawprose interview, if a lawyer is a stinker, the judges will get that. Just don't go there.
5. "Circuit judges like bullet points." (As I'm doing here.)
6. "Don't just cite--explain."
7. "Follow the rules."
8. Judges like plain English. Again, more is less. Does that adjective or adverb add anything?
9. Proofread. (Hint, read out loud. I once sent out a document opining on  "Pubic Act 93-242." Spelled correctly, yes?)
10. "Organize your writing." Again, this helps readers get their arms around what you're saying.

Mr. Moore's article is worth reading once it is online.