Legal Writing: Transitions Enable Readers to Follow the Writer's Thinking

Legal writers need to use enough accurate signals to guide their readers through the complex terrain of most legal reasoning.

By Mary Barnard Ray

As a Girl Scout leader, I frequently find myself in a caravan following another vehicle down the highway toward a new, unfamiliar destination. It reminds me of reading. When the driver in front signals each turn or lane change appropriately, it is easy to follow and reach the intended destination. If, however, that driver fails to signal or signals inaccurately, I inevitably go astray. Accurate transitions, like accurate turn signals, enable the reader to follow the writer's thinking. Legal writers need to use enough accurate signals in their writing to guide their readers through the complex terrain of most legal reasoning.

Negotiating Unfamiliar Territory

The importance of clear signals becomes most apparent when you are in unfamiliar places. For example, when you read the following passage from a computer journal, verbal signals provide clues to the sequence and logical relationship of the ideas in the text, even though it contains unfamiliar content.

Example: "Once cells are captured, the analyzer shows a summary, detail, and 53-byte hex dump of each cell in the buffer. The summary contains the cell-time stamp with a resolution of seven decimal places or 100 ms., the best in our tests. The summary also includes information from the ATM cell header including the VPI (Virtual Path Identifier) and VCI (Virtual Circuit Identifier), and the decode of the adaptation layer (AALJ for LANE, for example)."¹

The word "once" at the beginning of the paragraph tells you that this paragraph followed information about capturing cells and that the upcoming paragraph will explain what happens next. The commas between items in lists signal where each listed item stops, which becomes particularly important in complex or unfamiliar lists. The repetition of "summary" at the beginning of the second and third sentence signals that "summary" is an important point in the paragraph. The superlative "best" tells you that this paragraph comes from an article comparing various analyzers. The phrase "our tests" tells you that research has been done. Finally, the parentheses in the last sentence set off explanatory notes for the reader who needs the explanation, while allowing other readers to skip quickly over that supplementary information.

In total, the writer of the previous excerpt used six signals within three sentences. Yet the signals do not appear overdone or too obvious; they simply help the reader follow the content. Similarly, the legal writer should not be afraid to use signals of his or her organization. Although they may appear obvious to the writer, accurate signals do not usually distract the reader of complex content. (In contrast, too many obvious signals do become annoying in more familiar content, and so fewer are usually used in novels, newspaper articles, and the like.)

If you need more to convince you of the importance of clear signals, read the following passage from a physician's reference text, a passage describing qualities of a rabies vaccine. The signals in the passage are often unclear or misleading, which causes the reader to have to stop and reshuffle information.

Example: "High titer antibody responses of the MIR Vaccine made in human diploid cells have been demonstrated in trials conducted in England, Germany, France, and Belgium, seroconversion was often obtained with only one dose.

"With two doses one month apart, 100% of the recipients developed specific antibody and the geometric mean titer of the group was approximately 10 international units. In the US, MIR Vaccine resulted in geometric mean titers (GMT) of 12.9 I.U./ml at Day 49 and 5.1 I.U./ml at Day 90 when three doses were given intermuscularly during the course of one month."²

The passage moves smoothly through the list ending with "Belgium," but then the reader stumbles into "seroconversion," which is actually the subject of a new sentence. A comma has been used where a period was needed. After negotiating through that interruption, the reader seems to be able to follow the logic in the beginning of the next paragraph, as the wording signals a contrast between "only one dose" and "two doses." Some questions can begin to emerge about the comparison, however, for the nonmedical reader.

• Is "seroconversion" the same as "developed specific antibody"? If so, why use a different term?
• Is antibody a modifier of some other noun, which the singular form signals? If so, what should the noun be (it's missing)?
• Or is "antibody" meant to be the noun, which means the writer made a grammatical error and this should read "antibodies"?

Having slowed down to ponder these questions, the reader then hits "In the US" mid-paragraph, which triggers more questions.

• Is this paragraph focused on more detail about the previous trials, or is it going to move to a comparison between the US and European trials?
• Should the previous sentence really have been in the previous paragraph? Is this a new point or only a slight bend in the support?

Finally, the reader finishes reading the data, only to be left wondering how the data can be fairly compared.

• How does the data expressed in "I.U./ml" compare with the earlier data expressed in "geometric mean titer"?
• Were the other doses given "intermuscularly" too, and that wasn't stated, or is a significant difference being flagged?

In fairness to the authors of both texts, neither of these documents was meant to be read by nonexperts, so these comments are not meant to be criticisms of their work. Rather, these passages are meant to help you as a legal writer experience the same feelings your nonlegal reader may have when reading your technical texts. They also are meant to help you understand how clear signals help any reader negotiate his or her way through unfamiliar territory.

Endnotes

¹ J. Scott Haugdahl, "Wandel and Goltermann's High-Speed Protocol Analyzers Tops in Tests," 10 Network Computing, Feb. 8, 1999, at 78.

² Physicians Desk Reference, 53rd Edition 2329 (1999). (See the entry for Pasteur Merieux Connaught Rabies Vaccine Imovax^TM Rabies).

Wisconsin Lawyer