I'm not a quick study, so maybe it's just me. But it seems that I am stuck reading a lot of legal writing multiple times before I understand it. Readers will often resent this (I do) or give up trying to figure it out. The one thing that legal writers can do to avoid this is to front-load the information. You should try to synopsize or summarize at the beginning of your letter or document what you're trying to say so that your readers have a road map where you're going. It puts everything in context for them. Doing this takes real work. So the question becomes: How does offloading this work to your readers help them understand it or be persuaded by it?

The political "debate" on health-care reform is a lesson for advocates. Regardless of your views on the merits of the issue, I think the proponents did a dismal job in promoting it. This weekend I  read two different opinion columns that concluding this as well--that the proponents' lack of clarity dragged the bill down. Although I don't think every advocate should argue using a marketing theme similar to beer commercials, your story or argument must have a theme or synopsis that your reader or listener immediately grasps. Justice Scalia and Bryan A. Garner in Making Your Case (2009) also discuss the multiple benefits of clarity: "Clarity is amply justified on the  ground that it ensures you'll be understood. But in our adversary system it performs an additional function. The clearer your arguments, the harder it will be for your opponent to mischarcterize them." (emphasis added) Garrison Keillor's Sunday column entitled "Get real and consider the basic question." "The problem for Democrats right now is that nobody can explain health-care reform in plain English, 50 words or less. It's all too murky. . . . like all murky stuff, it is liable to strike people as dangerous or unreliable." Ever had a judge ask you what's this case all about--and you coudn't tell them in 30 seconds or less? Frank Rich's Sunday column: "Worse, the master communicator in the White House has still not delivered a coherent message on his signature policy.

When did the words "skills" and "talents" become inadequate? I keep hearing announcers and pundits in sports and politics referring to a person's "skill-sets." Is it too late to add this to Lake Superior State University's 2010 Banished Word List? Just wondering.

Last week the Legal Writing Prof Blog recited a list of books that had been recommended for attorneys who wanted to improve their work product (writing) that had been compiled by an informal survey at the law librarian listserv. It’s a good list but didn’t include the following books that I also thought were good. I don’t think either list is exclusive of the other. Anyway, my additions to that list: Writing with Style (2nd ed. 2000), by John R. Trimble. This book was mentioned or recommended by Bryan A. Garner at one of his seminars, and I bought it on his recommendation alone. It is the best book on writing that I have ever read. I try to re-read it every year. Plain English for Lawyers (2nd ed. 2005), by Richard C. Wydick. A classic. Writing to Win (1999), by Steven D. Stark. Written by a former litigator for lawyers, it also gives specific tips on briefs, complaints, and memos. Revising Business Prose (2nd ed. 1987), by Richard A. Lanham. Provides you a template “how to” improve your writing. Writing for the Legal Audience (2003), by Wayne Schiess. Schiess is a legal-writing professor at the University of Texas. His book is excellent, and I follow his blog as well. Maybe the next list should recommend books on writing that are not directed at lawyers.