Why Do Lawyers Suck At Writing?

For the majority of my teenage years, I tried thinking of which career would suit me best– first thinking of finding something in psychology. I then remembered that I couldn’t see myself sitting in an office all day listening to the issues of psychologically disturbed individuals and not giving meaningful advice whatsoever (or not helping them in general) as a response to the rambling that had just occurred. Of course, this was before I actually knew what psychology was, which is “the study of mental processes and behavior” as defined by Michael Gazzaniga, a famous psychologist who did a study that led to the discovery of split brain (Gazzaniga, Halpern, and Heatherton 4).

However, after watching Legally Blonde for the tenth time, I began to really think about Reese Witherspoon’s character Elle. Elle Woods is introduced in the beginning of the movie as a sorority girl who is trying to win back her ex-boyfriend by getting a law degree. In the movie, she overcomes many obstacles and stereotypes in order to be at the top of her class while also proving to everyone that didn’t think she could do it, including her ex-boyfriend. During this self-enlightening journey through law school, she also helps a young attorney and future husband, Emmett Richmond, win a lawsuit that was against their client. And with that, it dawned on me that I could possibly have a future in the field she found success in: law. After watching the movie the first time, I became so interested in law as a whole that I even started looking at questions for the LSAT to prepare myself for the test.

When thinking about what I was going to write about, I looked at any articles or essays pertaining to psychology, as that is my current major. Although the articles I skimmed through were interesting, especially an article I stumbled upon about the Bundy effect*, I couldn’t help but think: this isn’t what I want to write about. As much as I like psychology and learning about all the functions of the mind and brain, writing about it didn’t seem plausible since I couldn’t see myself focusing on one aspect of psychology to write about.

After coming to the conclusion that writing about psychology was much too difficult for me to write, I came across an article titled “Why lawyers can’t write”, written by Bryan A. Garner**.

In Garner’s article, he discusses the common mistakes lawyers – new lawyers and transactional lawyers especially – make when it comes to legal writing. In his article, he brings up the Dunning-Kruger effect – a theory created by two Cornell psychologists, David Dunning and Justin Kruger, which basically involves the following:

“unskillful or unknowledgeable people (1) often think they are quite skillful or knowledgeable, (2) can’t recognize genuine skill in others, (3) uniformly fail to recognize the extremity of their own inadequacy, and (4) can recognize and acknowledge their own previous unskillfulness only after highly effective training in the skill.” (Garner)

In other words, these people tend to be arrogant know-it-alls who rarely concede to the fact that they make mistakes too. Yet they will be the first ones to shed a light on the mistakes others make rather than seeing the skills they acquire. He further expands on this point by going as far as blaming law schools, as he believes that they “offer law students little if any feedback (on substance, much less style) from professors on exams and writing assignments” (Garner) while also believing that the quality of writing as dropped over the years, which has also resulted in bad legal writing.

Once I finished reading Garner’s article, I started thinking about its content and the language used. Although he used rather sophisticated vocabulary – e.g. erudite and ubiquitous – that I probably learned from my SAT vocab list but forgot or didn’t know simply because I had never encountered them in any readings from high school, his article was still easy to comprehend. Now this may seem a bit confusing but here me out on this: although the language was slightly challenging, it wasn’t difficult enough to the point where only those with extremely rich vocabularies would be able to get something out of what he was saying. His article was written slightly similar to that of a blogger; Garner’s writing was written with the intent of letting everyone understand what he was saying regardless of the words he used.

Not only was his article easy to read and understand, it is also applicable to many groups – ranging from new lawyers to lawyers and judges who have been working in the industry for more than twenty years. Even students that are still in law school can possibly relate to the content within his article, especially because at some point they will have to deal with the same issues as it not only discusses the common mistakes that are made in legal writing, but also [in a way] discusses the psychology behind this phenomenon, specifically when Garner expands on the Dunning-Kruger effect in his own words: “A further finding of great interest is that skillful people tend to overestimate others’ skills and underestimate their own” (Garner).

The tone Garner uses within his writing is also a major factor; how he speaks in his writing seems to be more candid than it is formal as he does here when he elaborates on the Dunning-Kruger effect lawyers and others often face: “The blame goes primarily to the law schools. They inundate students with poorly written, legalese-riddled opinions that read like over-the-top Marx Brothers parodies of stiffness and hyperformality” (Garner). In fact, it is almost as if Garner is ranting in a manner that also seems as if he is chastising the readers who frequently make these mistakes instead of giving this section of the audience – the new lawyers who tend to stumble upon these issues or the transactional lawyers who don’t notice their wrongdoings – the advice they need.

In short, Garner impeccably illustrates the three major issues in legal writing, which mostly involves the types of legal professionals he mentions falling victim to overconfidence, a term in psychology which is basically “the tendency to be very sure of a fact and later finding that the objective reality was different” (“Overconfidence”). In other words, the legal personnel Garner is describing throughout his article are those who believe what their legal writing is superb, when in reality they’re ignorant to the amount of mistakes they’ve actually made until either another person or even themselves have pointed the errors out.

Overall, Garner’s article about why lawyers tend be mediocre writers is a great read, even for those who are the slightest bit interested in legal matters.

---------------------------------------------------

Works Cited

Alley Dog. "Overconfidence." Definition. Alleydog.com, 15 Oct. 2015. Web. 15 Oct. 2015. <http://www.alleydog.com/glossary/definition.php?term=Overconfidence>.

Garner, Bryan A. "Why Lawyers Can't Write." Weblog post. Abajournal.com. American Bar Association, 1 Mar. 2013. Web. 12 Oct. 2015. <http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/why_lawyers_cant_write>.

Gazzaniga, Michael S., Todd F. Heatherton, and Diane F. Halpern. "What Is Psychological Science?" Psychological Science. 5th ed. Canada: W.W. Norton, 2016. 4. Print.

Ramsland, Katherine, Ph.D. "The Bundy Effect." Psychology Today. Psychology Today, 18 Aug. 2015. Web. 9 Oct. 2015. <https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/shadow-boxing/201508/the-bundy-effect>.

* Ted Bundy’s chilling ability to be a human chameleon in terms of personality and character according to Katherine Ramsland, Ph.D.

** Garner is lawyer from Texas who founded LawProse Inc., a company that is dedicated to the improvement of legal writing for lawyers and judges.