On Word Choice

The anti-abortion people were right.

Because once upon a time, they were anti-abortion.  Then they became pro-life.

Pro-life wins!  (At least as against “anti-abortion.”)

It’s all a matter of phrasing.

The “estate tax” went under siege when it became the “death tax.”  Congress may soon put it out of its misery.

Drug manufacturers knew they were in trouble when they became Big Pharma.  Maybe you can take something for that.

When you’re thinking about politics, word choice makes good sense.  People fret about it.  But people don’t fret about word choice in other contexts, and perhaps they should.

I understand that you’re “moving for a continuance.”  But in your note to the client explaining what’s happening, how about talking like a human being:  “We’re asking to postpone the hearing . . . .”

No one continues stuff.  People postpone things.  So talk like a person.

I understand that the rules of evidence permit you to show a document to a witness to “refresh [the witness’] recollection.”  But people don’t speak like that.  So you shouldn’t speak like that — either at a trial (where you’re trying to sound like a common man), or at a deposition (because the video may be played at trial, ruining your impersonation of a common man), or ever (just as a matter of principle).  No one looks at a document to “refresh your recollection.”  Everyone looks at a document to see if it “jogs your memory.”

So use “jogs your memory” when you speak.  Sound like a person.

I understand that we’ve intentionally changed our vocabulary for other purposes:  We “rightsize” instead of “laying people off,” so we don’t feel as guilty about our conduct.  We “terminate” employees, rather than “fire” them.  We hire “partners” or “colleagues,” rather than “employees,” because we don’t want folks to feel as though they’re simply being employed.

I worked at a law firm that historically referred to client relationship partners as “responsible billing lawyers,” or “RBLs.”  Wrong.  How do you think clients felt when they heard that their relationship partners were nothing more than billing lawyers?

That law firm also eventually corrected its error of calling the group that employed new associates the “New Associates’ Group,” whose members were “NAGs” for short.  New lawyers don’t like to hear that they’re NAGs.  (It’s now the New Lawyers’ Group, or NLG, which may take longer to say, but at least it doesn’t have an offensive shorthand.)

I really don’t think we should refer to our initiative to include “limitations of liability” in client contracts as an effort to obtain LOLs.

Clients might LOL when we make the request.

Some places euphemistically refer to all of their “malpractice” cases as “E&O” cases.  That’s a bad idea.  When people commit malpractice, they should be told that they committed malpractice, and they should cringe every time they hear the word.

You don’t want to protect the feelings of people who screwed up; you want them to stop doing it.

It’s malpractice.

Pause, for just a moment, to consider the words that you’re using.  Do you use words out of tradition, even though they convey no meaning?  Are you using jargon?  Is there another word that could more vividly convey what you mean?

If you choose the right word for an event or an occasion, you’ll both communicate more clearly and encourage others to follow your compelling lead.

---

Mark Herrmann spent 17 years as a partner at a leading international law firm and is now deputy general counsel at a large international company. 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 [email protected].