Brevity in drafting is a blessing and far less open to misinterpretation. I was once asked why use “in the event that” when “if” sufficed. Good point. Long sentences tend to lead to confusion.
Thomas Jefferson said "The most valuable of all talent is that of never using two words when one will do".
I saw a memorandum from Winston Churchill to his War Cabinet this week. He said most papers were “far too long” which means “energy has to be spent in looking for the essential points”.
He advocated the main points being set out in “short, crisp paragraphs” with detailed analysis in appendices and removing woolly phrases like “consideration should be given to the possibility of”. He did after all have a country to run and a world war to win.
Churchill’s books like his works on the history of the Second World War illustrate his approach to clarity of drafting.
All of this holds true today. An analysis of legal cases on IT law related subjects in the English courts shows the judges having a field day on imprecise and overly complex clauses, often coming to a conclusion that may well not have been intended by either of the parties to the contract concerned.
The same is true of reports and notes of advice. If they are long and complex not only is there a good chance they will be misunderstood by the recipients, but it is also an indication of unclear thinking.
I will keep this week’s post short and to the point and encourage an economic and succinct approach to the drafting of documents by lawyers and other professionals.
Thomas Jefferson said "The most valuable of all talent is that of never using two words when one will do".
I saw a memorandum from Winston Churchill to his War Cabinet this week. He said most papers were “far too long” which means “energy has to be spent in looking for the essential points”.
He advocated the main points being set out in “short, crisp paragraphs” with detailed analysis in appendices and removing woolly phrases like “consideration should be given to the possibility of”. He did after all have a country to run and a world war to win.
Churchill’s books like his works on the history of the Second World War illustrate his approach to clarity of drafting.
All of this holds true today. An analysis of legal cases on IT law related subjects in the English courts shows the judges having a field day on imprecise and overly complex clauses, often coming to a conclusion that may well not have been intended by either of the parties to the contract concerned.
The same is true of reports and notes of advice. If they are long and complex not only is there a good chance they will be misunderstood by the recipients, but it is also an indication of unclear thinking.
I will keep this week’s post short and to the point and encourage an economic and succinct approach to the drafting of documents by lawyers and other professionals.
RSS Feed
