If You're Using . . .
Four tips for how to communicate clearly, from in-house columnist Mark Herrmann.
If you’re using an acronym, then I don’t understand it.
That’s true for briefs, of course. But I’m thinking more broadly today; I’m thinking about life.
Perhaps your seminar about OFFBR is fascinating; I wouldn’t know. But I’m sure not going to register for it unless you tell me, in actual words that I can understand, what you’ll be discussing. Your email offering insights about OFFBR — from leading experts in the field!!! — just doesn’t do the trick.
Generative AI In Legal Work — What’s Fact And What’s Fiction?
Perhaps your employer, GDH, is a fine institution; I wouldn’t know. But I’m sure not taking your call or opening your email if I don’t recognize the name of your outfit.
Within your own company, perhaps the ARR on the SNHI account by the JGSC unit is worth analyzing; I wouldn’t know. But recipients of your email can’t help with the analysis if they don’t know what you’re talking about.
You think I’m kidding here; I’m not. I recently witnessed — or heard about, or dreamed, or hallucinated; I don’t reveal confidential information on the web — a meeting in which a memo about an investigation referred repeatedly to the SPOC. The group was about to act on the recommendation until someone asked, “What does ‘SPOC’ mean?” There were a dozen people in the room; no one knew the meaning of the words they were reading.
(Okay, okay: “Single point of contact.”)
Sponsored
Generative AI In Legal Work — What’s Fact And What’s Fiction?
How Transactional Lawyers Can Better Serve (And Maintain) Their Clients
Law Firms Now Have A Choice In Their Document Comparison Software
AI’s Impact On Law Firms Of Every Size
If you guessed it, you’re a better man than I am (which, on reflection, sets a mighty low bar).
Where was I?
Oh, yeah. Second point:
If you’re using shock quotation marks, then you don’t know what you’re saying.
If the “run-off” won’t be credited “dollar-for-dollar” against the revenue, then the “client” won’t “live with it.”
Sponsored
AI’s Impact On Law Firms Of Every Size
Why Do AI And Legal Professionals Make The Perfect Partnership?
“Run-off” is ambiguous. “Dollar-for-dollar” might actually mean something, but the shock quotes make the meaning uncertain. Is the person really a “client,” or is he something else? (If a client, what do the shock quotes signify? If not a client, how about telling me what he is?) And in what sense won’t the client “live with it”? Will he complain? Fire us? Or really not live with it, because the mere offer will prompt apoplexy?
Shock quotes don’t aid the reader’s comprehension; rather, they expose your lack of command of the language. Do you “understand” what I’m “saying”?
Instead of using imprecise words set off in shock quotes, use ordinary English words and phrases according to their usual meanings. That avoids the need to invent new meanings and then set incomprehensible words off in quotes. Your readers should be able to understand your sentences without devoting a lifetime’s study to your personal hermeneutics.
Two down, two to go:
If you’re using business jargon, then I won’t (1) connect with you on LinkedIn or (2) continue reading your email.
I know, I know: Your LinkedIn profile is entirely accurate. There’s just no other way to put it: You’re a high-energy, adrenal-pumping, high-falutin’ business executive who prioritizes tasks, achieving significant synergies. You leverage your network to amplify your messaging.
Good for you, I guess. Whatever you do, I don’t need it.
I’m not hiring you, or reading any further, or encouraging any more communications between us.
For two reasons: First, life is too short. Second, I don’t understand what you’re saying, and I honestly don’t believe that you understand what you’re saying. I think that your mind is mush, and you’re hiding behind meaningless jargon.
Incentivize your colleagues to level-set before they operationalize without me, thank you very much.
Finally:
If you’re using a sentence that’s more than 3 1/2 typed lines long, then I forgot where I was and had to go back and re-read the thing.
That annoyed me.
I’m a reasonably intelligent guy, and I should be able to understand stuff as I read it. If your sentence is so convoluted that an average reader gets lost in the middle and must go back and re-read to divine what you’re saying, then your sentence is no good.
You owe me, the reader, better than that. (If the reader is a judge, you surely owe the judge better than that.)
Writing run-on sentences is rude. It offends readers. It causes many readers simply to plow ahead, continuing to read words without comprehending substance. It causes litigators to lose cases, and business folks to alienate colleagues and fail to communicate.
And it’s inexcusable to write run-on sentences. You can fix your error in a heartbeat: Look at what you just wrote. Is any sentence more than 3 1/2 typed lines long? If so, find an excuse to stick a period in there.
Got it?
Mark Herrmann is Vice President and Deputy General Counsel – Litigation and Employment at Aon, the world’s leading provider of risk management services, insurance and reinsurance brokerage, and human capital and management consulting. He is the author of The Curmudgeon’s Guide to Practicing Law and Inside Straight: Advice About Lawyering, In-House And Out, That Only The Internet Could Provide (affiliate links). You can reach him by email at inhouse@abovethelaw.com.
