As promised, here are writing tips from George Orwell. 

You are probably most familiar with George Orwell as the author of such novels as 1984 and Animal Farm, and his memoir Down and Out in Paris.

But he was also a passionate advocate for good writing.  He wrote an essay in 1946, “Politics and the English Language,” that is still instructive today.  I have mentioned this essay before, but it always bears repeating.  Read the whole essay when you get a chance, but here are some of his tips for good writing: 


And Orwell continues with these tips: 


And then Orwell has some sarcasm for those who do not follow these rules:

Copyblogger gives Hemingway's top five tips for writing well.  Suprisingly (or maybe not) the tips should also improve legal writing.  First, use short sentences.  Second, use short first paragraphs.  Third, use vigorous English.  Fourth, be positive, not negative.  Copyblogger says that Hemingway had only four rules, but he found a fifth that may be most important of all, especially to legal writing. 


Very good advice! 

Tomorrow, tips from George Orwell. 

Prawfsblawg is hosting a contest for your "favorite bad legal argument."  We could all enter that contest -- with arguments we have heard and, unfortunately, arguments that we have made.  Anyway, the entries are fascinating and somewhat educational!  Enjoy. 

And thanks to Appellate law & Practice! 

I was discussing my blog and other writing issues with friends last night.  Between sushi orders, someone asked about the use of "on accident" and "by accident."  I had never heard anyone use "on accident," and, because I always use "by accident," I assumed that was correct.  I was right, to an extent.  Unfortunately, my answer probably tells you that I am over thirty. 

The Washington State University list of Common Errors in English  states affirmatively that "on accident" is incorrect:   "Although you can do things on purpose, you do them by accident."

The Urban Dictionary also agrees with me (I think):  "on accident" is defined as the "improper usage of the phrase "by accident". Started in the United States, but it has started to spread to other countries like a plague. A terrible, terrible, grammar plague."  In case you are not familar with this site, Urban Dictionary "is a slang dictionary with your definitions."

Pain in the English addressed the issue, with many comments.  Most agreed that "on accident" is incorrect, but becoming more common.

Grammar Girl also discussed the subject.   She notes that Leslie Barrett, a professor of Linguistics at Indiana State University, wrote a paper about "on accident" and other changes in language.  "According to Barratt's study, use of the two different versions appears to be distributed by age. Whereas on accident is common in people under 35, almost no one over 40 says on accident. Most older people say by accident. It's really amazing: the study says that 'on is more prevalent under age 10, both on and by are common between the ages of 10 and 35, and by is overwhelmingly preferred by those over 35.' " Unfortunately, however, "Barratt found that there is no widespread stigma associated with saying on accident."

Tim W. at Mother Tongue Annoyances checked the OED to research the issue.  Here is what Tim said: 


So, to conclude, many people (including me) think that the use of the term "on accident" is incorrect and annoying.  Unless you want to be considered incorrect and annoying by many people, you should use "by accident."    In particular, it is probably not a good idea to argue that your client 's conduct was not intentional because it was "on accident." 

The Style and Substance blog at the Wall Street Journal lists some trite jargon that we should all avoid.  The list includes "bitter dispute," soft-spoken, whopping, key, and "going forward."  Read the post to see why some WSJ staffers dislike those terms. 

The blog also has a quiz -- find the flubs in actual sentences from the Journal. 

Ken Adams has a pop quiz for lawyers who draft contracts at his blog, AdamsDrafting.  I don't draft contracts, but I enjoy pop quizzes.  (By the way, I made a perfect score).  Here are the questions: 



Go to Ken's blog to check the answers.  Ken is a strong advocate for improving the quality of contract drafting and also for establishing a set of rules to guide contract drafting.  Even litigators (like me) can learn a lot from reading Ken's blog. 

While you are at Ken's blog, read his entry about the different cultures of deal lawyers and litigators.   Ken accurately states the general perception that litigators as being fighters and deal lawyers as being builders.  But the best litigators and the best deal lawyers find a way to do both.

Evan Schaeffer at the Illinois Trial Practice blog suggests that we draft our brief before reading the other side's brief.  He asks if that "sounds nuts," and my first response is that it does.  In my practice, I am hired by lawyers to write briefs and generally am not involved in the case until the time that a brief is needed.

But there are times that I am involved in a case through discovery, dispositive motions and trial.  In those cases, I do think it is helpful to keep and regularly update an outline of my theory of the case and supporting proof.  I also try to draft an outline of the opposing party's theory of the case, noting the proof on all issues.  These outlines and Evan's tip to draft a brief before seeing the other side's papers both require lawyers to evaluate and re-evaluate their cases.  Without regular review of relative merits of the case, it would be easy to get to the end of discovery and not be prepared for trial.  Also, we all know that the strength of a case can change rapidly during discovery.  We can't advise our clients properly without evaluating the case in the context of new witnesses and new documents. 

So Evan, your tip may initially sound nuts, but it is very sound.

You know I enjoy Grammar Girl.  Check out her brother Legal Lad.   His recent posts include discussion of the legallity of recording conversations, living wills and power of attorney, the Fifth Amendment and Filing for a Tax Extension.  Each podcast begins with a disclaimer: 


Grammar Girl is Mignon Fogarty, but I have not been able to find Legal Lad's real name. Anybody know? 

The Chicago Manual of Style accepts questions regarding the Manual and responds in a monthly Q&A section.  I saw two questions this month that may be of interest to legal writers. 


First, a question about bullets: 



Second, a question that highlights the point that, if proper construction of a sentence is awkward, you should just re-write it: