In the complex and meticulous world of legal language, the value of precision cannot be overstated. Clarity is paramount, and eliminating unnecessary words is a skill that can transform convoluted legal documents into concise and comprehensible masterpieces. Let’s delve into ten examples showcasing how trimming the fat from legal prose can enhance its impact:
1. “In Accordance With” vs. “Under” or “According to”
The phrase “in accordance with” often adds unnecessary weight to sentences. Consider the difference between “In accordance with the law” and the more direct alternatives, “Under the law” or “According to the law.” This subtle change maintains precision while shedding superfluous verbiage.
2. “Due to the Fact That” vs. “Because”
Another common culprit is the phrase “due to the fact that.” Simplify your language by replacing it with the straightforward “because.” For instance, transform “Due to the fact that the plaintiff suffered injuries, compensation is sought” into “Because the plaintiff suffered injuries, compensation is sought.”
3. “In the Event That” vs. “If”
The phrase “in the event that” can often be streamlined to the simpler “if.” For example, rephrase “In the event that the defendant fails to appear” to “If the defendant fails to appear.” This not only trims excess words but also maintains the necessary legal precision.
4. “With Regard To” vs. “Regarding” or “About”
The phrase “with regard to” is a common culprit in legal documents. Replace it with more concise alternatives such as “regarding” or “about.” For instance, transform “With regard to the matter at hand” into “Regarding this matter” for a cleaner, more direct expression.
5. “At This Point in Time” vs. “Now” or “Currently”
The phrase “at this point in time” can often be replaced with simpler alternatives like “now” or “currently.” For example, change “At this point in time, we are not able to proceed” to “Currently, we are not able to proceed” for a more succinct expression.
6. “In the Vicinity Of” vs. “Near” or “Close to”
When dealing with spatial references, the phrase “in the vicinity of” can be swapped with more straightforward options like “near” or “close to.” Instead of saying “The incident occurred in the vicinity of the bank,” you can say “The incident occurred near the bank.”
7. “In Order To” vs. “To”
The phrase “in order to” is often unnecessary and can be replaced with the simpler “to.” For example, change “In order to file the motion, you must follow the prescribed procedure” to “To file the motion, you must follow the prescribed procedure.”
8. “In the Absence Of” vs. “Without”
Replace the phrase “in the absence of” with the more direct “without.” For instance, transform “In the absence of a signed agreement, the deal is null and void” into “Without a signed agreement, the deal is null and void.”
9. “As a Means of” vs. “To”
The phrase “as a means of” can often be replaced with the simpler “to.” For example, change “He used the document as a means of conveying his intentions” to “He used the document to convey his intentions.”
10. Other phrases to cut
“With reference to” = “about” or “regarding”
“In favor of” = “for”
“prior to” = “before”
“subsequent to” = “after”
“For the purpose of” = “to”
“In connection with” = “concerning”
Conclusion:
In the realm of legal English, brevity is not just a stylistic preference; it’s a necessity. By conscientiously eliminating unnecessary words, legal professionals can enhance the precision and impact of their language, fostering a legal landscape where clarity reigns supreme. Embrace the art of simplicity, and let your words serve as beacons of lucidity in the intricate world of legal communication.
Now go out and Cut! Cut! Cut those unnecessary words!