The Most Overused Phrases In My Legal Writing

What words and phrases do you overuse?

A businessman working on his laptop at his deskI have a case that has been all-encompassing. It has taken substantial time and effort for more than a month. I have been in a near constant state of drafting pleadings for it. I will be in this position with respect to this case for at least another month. I’m not ready to talk about it directly yet except to say that when one drafts several different pleadings in the same case, one starts to notice that there are certain expressions on which one relies. I have noticed that there are a few that I am using over, and over, over again, because — let’s face it — at this point when I am not copying and pasting substantial swaths of legal argument, I am simply channeling my mind from two weeks ago.

Here are a few expressions/words/phrases that it appears I am fond of overusing:

“It is axiomatic…” Onomatopoeically the word axiomatic is frigging awesome. I am obsessed with using it. That is not without problems. See if you frequently use the word “axiomatic,” it just makes you kind of sound like an arrogant prick. There are not that many things that are self-evident or unquestionable in life, much less in legal briefing.

“There is no basis to believe…” I am not sure at what point I decided to replace the word unbelievable with 6 words, but I did and do. I guess it sounds nicer than unbelievable, but it’s really just another way of calling the other party, or witness, or the other party’s counsel a liar or stupid. I’ll probably continue to do it, but when separated from the remainder of the sentence, I realize just how passive-voicey and crappy writing it is.

“Constellation of factors.” I know that a lot of other lawyers use “totality of the circumstances,” to mean precisely the same thing. And sure, that’s an actual legal concept. But “constellation of the factors” is my — I liked that band before they were cool — way of asserting that my expression is unique and that I don’t buy into your sellout phrase. Plus, mine deals with stars. And stars are like totes cool.

“It is interesting that…” I’m not sure when I started using this one, and I’m sure it’s another thing that makes me look like a douchebag to opposing counsel. Nevertheless, any good brief addresses directly the other side’s argument, but should do so in a flattering light. My “it is interesting that…” is usually reserved for the argument that most confounds me. By saying it is interesting, I have acknowledged that at first glance there’s something admirable about it, but have also set up the opportunity to fully dismiss it. It is more respectful than what I almost always type and then delete prior to typing “it is interesting that…”, which is to call the argument “fascinating but irrelevant.” See if you compare what I think to what I write… you end up thinking I’m even more of a pompous jerk.

Finally, and this one you may have already processed and realized from reading my column. I really, really, really like to use two words that mean the same thing. Maybe I do it for the lyrical and tonal effect. Or it could be because my writing is redundant and repetitive. Perhaps it’s because I like to give the reader multiple and varied options to obtain the point of my writing. I wish that I could say that this is something that I will cease or abate. But I probably will not and cannot.

Sponsored

Thanks for joining me on this self-indulgent journey. Looking at my writing a few weeks later is like looking in a mirror in the changing room of a department store. It never looks as good as I thought it would.


Atticus T. Lynch, Esq. is an attorney in Any Town, Any State, U.S.A. He did not attend a top ten law school. He’s a litigator who’d like to focus on Employment and Municipal Litigation, but the vicissitudes of business cause him to “focus” on anything that comes in the door. He can be reached at atticustlynch@gmail.com or on Twitter.

Sponsored