Writing Tips

The term conditional clause explains itself. Typically, a conditional clause begins

with if, when, where, or because (or one of dozens of similar words) and states a condition that must occur or not occur before something else can occur or not occur, or has already occurred or not occurred, prompting something else to occur or preventing something else from occurring. (I think I said that right.)

Too often we place the conditional clause at the end of a sentence, which prevents us from emphasizing the main point (which is not the condition) and counteracts the natural flow of ideas for our readers.

I'm moving to Borneo, if this Brexit thing happens.

The Portland Commission acts under constitutional authority, when it creates renewal districts.

Adequate notice has been provided where the opponent had a chance to file a written objection.

These sentences make a U-turn at the end, taking our reader back with them and burying the main point. Properly arranged sentences will be chronological: What happens first, goes first. (See Tip: “The Best-Kept Writing Secret of All Time.”) A condition must always happen, or fail to happen, first, so we place it at the beginning of the sentence to set the stage for our main point. That chronological flow helps our readers remember what is important and keeps them moving forward.

If this Brexit thing happens, I'm moving to Borneo.

When it creates renewal districts, the Portland Commission acts under constitutional authority.

Where the opponent had a chance to file a written objection, adequate notice has been provided.

If our sentence contains a condition, it should always come first, even when we simply sign off on an email:

Please let me know if you need further clarification.

If you need further clarification, please let me know.

Hear how much sharper that sounds (on paper)? No reader will sit back and marvel at how well you order your clauses (or avoid passive voice, or use verbs rather than nouns, or remove words with no meaning). They will just love your writing; but they won’t know why.

To awaken your brains from the eggnog stupor (does anybody really drink that stuff?) and calm them after the Rose Bowl frenzy, I have cooked up a short WordRake retrospective for 2016, spiced with A BAKER'S DOZEN MISTAKES (that's 13 for all who can't distinguish a croissant from a jelly donut) so you can practice you proofreading—typos, spelling, punctuation, usage problems! Hold me back! Anyone who spots all 13 will receive a shout-out in WordRake’s Redmond office and a round of applause from the engineers. Their big on giving credit where its due. When you think you’ve spotted them all, click the link at the bottom for the “Answers.”

HAPPY NEW YEAR FROM WORDRAKE!

As we enter 2017, thank you for continuing to support our mission at WordRake. I’ll keep the doings of the WordRake team brief, but hopefully you’ve had as great a year as we have.

WordRake Notes for 2016:

You open the WordRake Writing Tips 80,000 times every week.

In October, we launched WordRake 3, and even more robust and accurate editor. Anyone with a WordRake 2 license may get a [free upgrade to WordRake 3]. Please take advantage of this. It takes literally (I mean literally, as in literally) seconds.

WordRake 3 gives your over 600 new editing algorithms and 900 enhancements to existing algorithms.

WordRake COO Scott Johns and his engineering team have a perfect record for there flawless installations—15 to 2500 users—of WordRake Enterprise. [Learn more]

For the past four years, our enterprise customers have renewed 100%. [To find out why, try WordRake free for 7 days.]

The largest law firm in the world just instaled the enterprise version of WordRake.

Several huge federal agencies—as you can imagine, I cannot reveal their names—have either installed the WordRake software or are deep into a pilot program.

Lexis-Nexis Pacific has incorporated the WordRake software in its new LexisDraft Pro.

Remember that WordRake is availible for Outlook, too. [Learn more]

The long list of WordRake users grows exponentially and is comprised of AMLAW100 law firms, large corporations, small businesses, federal courts, state courts, nonprofits, city governments, prosecutors, public defenders, power companies, universities, and state and federal agencies I am not allowed to mention; I wish I could; you would be impressed.

Why are they using WordRake? Rather than hear it from me—I’m prejudice—hear it from two technology experts who published reviews of WordRake in December. The first from Luigi Benetton in Technozen:

"Had Microsoft Word been around when [Ayn Rand] wrote her tomes, she might have used WordRake, a professional editing and proofreading software add-in for Word, to tame some of her less egregious failings as a writer."

"Once you open your document, you get a toolbar that’s so simple you won’t need a user manual."

". . . the more you use WordRake, the less of your language it flags and the less you’ll need to use it. These better writing habits alone make WordRake a worthwhile investment."

And the second from Sean Doherty, writing in Attorney at Work:

"When you publish any material, assume the world will see it – be clear and concise. Software like WordRake can help you."

"[WordRake] software makes prose crisp, clear and concise by eliminating useless words in sentences. . . . Does it work? Yes."

"If you write in Word or Outlook, WordRake will bring clarity and crispness to your prose."

I could not have said it better myself. That's all the WordRake news it makes since to print. So from all of us to all of you, Have a Happy and Prosperous New Year!

The WordRake Team

Answers

Answers:

HAPPY NEW YEAR FROM WORDRAKE

To awaken your brains from the eggnog stupor (does anybody really drink that stuff?) and calm them after the Rose Bowl frenzy, I have cooked up a short WordRake retrospective for 2016, spiced with A BAKER'S DOZEN MISTAKES (that's 13 for all who can't distinguish a croissant from a jelly donut) so you can practice you (typo—should be your) proofreading—typos, spelling, punctuation, usage problems! Hold me back! Anyone who spots all thirteen will receive a shout-out in WordRake’s Redmond office and a round of applause from the engineers. Their (homonym confusion—should be contraction they're) big on giving credit where its (should be it's—See Tip: “Farmers Market Syndrome”) due. When you think you’ve spotted them all, click the link at the bottom for the “Answers.”

HAPPY NEW YEAR FROM WORDRAKE!

As we enter 2017, thank you for continuing to support our mission at WordRake. I’ll keep the doings of the WordRake team brief, but, hopefully, (should be I hope—See Tip: "Three Words That Aren't") you’ve had as great a year as we have.

WordRake Notes for 2016:

You open the WordRake Writing Tips 80,000 times every week.

In October, we launched WordRake 3, and (typo—should be an) even more robust and accurate editor. Anyone with a WordRake license may get a [free upgrade to WordRake 3]. Please take advantage of this. It takes literally (I mean literally, as in literally) seconds.

WordRake 3 gives your (typo—should be you) over 600 new editing algorithms and 900 enhancements to existing algorithms.

WordRake COO Scott Johns and his engineering team have a perfect record for there (homonym confusion—should be their) flawless installations—15 to 2500 users—of WordRake Enterprise. [Learn more]

For the past four years, our enterprise customers have renewed 100%. [To find out why, try WordRake free for 7 days.]

The largest law firm in the world just instaled (misspelling—should be installed) the enterprise version of WordRake.

Several huge federal agencies—as you can imagine, I cannot (should be may not—See Tip: “Still Another Three Words Many Writers Misuse”) reveal their names—have either installed the WordRake software or are deep into a pilot program.

Lexis-Nexis Pacific has incorporated the WordRake software in its new LexisDraft Pro.

WordRake is availible (misspelling—should be available) for Outlook, too. [Learn more]

The long list of WordRake users grows exponentially and is comprised of (should be comprises—See Tip: “Three More Words Many Writers Misuse”) AMLAW100 law firms, large corporations, small businesses, federal courts, state courts, nonprofits, city governments, prosecutors, public defenders, power companies, universities, and state and federal agencies I am not allowed to mention; I wish I could; you would be impressed.

Why are they using WordRake? Rather than hear it from me—I’m prejudice (misspelling—should be prejudiced)—hear it from two technology experts who published reviews of WordRake in December. The first from Luigi Benetton in Technozen:

"Had Microsoft Word been around when [Ayn Rand] wrote her tomes, she might have used WordRake, a professional editing and proofreading software add-in for Word, to tame some of her less egregious failings as a writer."

"Once you open your document, you get a toolbar that’s so simple you won’t need a user manual."

". . . the more you use WordRake, the less of your language it flags and the less you’ll need to use it. These better writing habits alone make WordRake a worthwhile investment."

The second from Sean Doherty, writing in Attorney at Work:

"When you publish any material, assume the world will see it – be clear and concise. Software like WordRake can help you."

"[WordRake] software makes prose crisp, clear and concise by eliminating useless words in sentences. . . . Does it work? Yes."

"If you write in Word or Outlook, WordRake will bring clarity and crispness to your prose."

I could not have said it better myself. That's all the WordRake news it makes since (homonym confusion—should be sense) to print. So from all of us to all of you, Have a Happy and Prosperous New Year!

The WordRake Team

Many of you are lawyers; many of you hire lawyers. Lawyers are nice people—stay with me. One thing I love most about lawyers is that they work hard to be good at what they do (it’s not an easy way to make a living). But put them in a suit, hand them a briefcase, and say, "Go represent this guy," and they change personalities. It's like somebody performed a lobotomy and out with the frontal lobe went common sense. They start writing stuff like, "The Appellee brazenly claims . . . ." "Incredibly, the Appellee contends . . . ." "It is lame, circular reasoning for the Appellee to argue . . . ." "With amazing chutzpah and inexcusable gall, the Appellee suggests . . . ." Ironically, the lawyer who wrote those sentences was "the nicest litigator I've ever had a case against," according to opposing counsel. "Only when we got in front of the judge or wrote something for the judge to read, did he act like this." Put them in a suit, hand them a briefcase, and say, "Go represent this guy," and lawyers . . . .

As I have noted before, underneath the lawyerlike bluff and bluster dwells a pretty nice person, a volunteer, a coach, a good neighbor who gives back to the community, back to the profession. But tell me why anyone not suffering from temporary insanity would write in a brief:

This is a story of a legal system run amuck, a Kafkaesque demonstration of tyranny given free rein.

What does that have to do with the subject matter of the case: bolts of cloth in a warehouse? And why would any sane person write the following about the owner of that warehouse?

Importer’s conduct in negotiating the ‘purchase’ of these alleged liens was based on the syllogism employed by many Middle Eastern terrorists with a penchant for seizing airliners and their passengers to secure the righting of what they perceive to be wrongs.

The next example has kept me awake at night, trying to picture it. But nothing comes to mind.

The Defendant’s actions can only be described as economic sodomy.

Would anyone smart enough to pass a state bar exam ever write this stuff because they thought it was effective? Of course not. They write it because they are grandstanding for a client, who is paying the bill. Many clients love to see their lawyers use a brief to punch the other guy in the face, the harder the better. But if we determined fees according to results, lawyers would never write this way, because writing this way loses cases.

One of our better-known lawyers, Abraham Lincoln, told a crowd in 1842:

When the conduct of men is designed to be influenced, persuasion, kind, unassuming persuasion, should ever be adopted. It is an old and a true maxim, that a "drop of honey catches more flies than a gallon of gall."

Remember, this was a guy who was not afraid to stand up for what was right. He just thought it more effective not to scream while he was standing.

Judges warn us frequently, but we can’t seem to help ourselves. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in Ohio recently emphasized:

. . . the near-certainty that overstatement will only push the reader away (especially when, as here, the hyperbole begins on page one of the brief).

Do lawyers somehow forget that their words will be read by judges who are about to decide whether their client will prevail? In an unpublished opinion out of Illinois, the court reminded all lawyers:

Repeated use of exclamation points at the end of sentences is wholly unnecessary . . . . More troubling is that plaintiff's arguments are also riddled with vituperative language leveled against the trial judge, . . . such as that "the court systematically eviscerated plaintiff's case" or that "the judge created absurdity and injustice." . . . [P]laintiff was similarly highly disrespectful in his briefs to the trial court, as well. Such pre-planned advocacy by an attorney never arouses sympathy for his client.

That is as close as judges will ever come to admitting that such language might sway them from the true path of impartiality. (A little secret: judges are human; they respond viscerally, the same as the rest of us. Don’t ever forget that.) As another court encouraged:

An advocate can present the cause, protect the record for subsequent review and preserve professional integrity by patient firmness no less effectively than by belligerence or theatrics.

Why do lawyers, or anyone—representatives in congress—need to be told this? A final hint from the courts on how to do it right:

Even where the record supports an extreme modifier, the better practice is usually to lay out the facts and let the court reach its own conclusions.

When I was teaching a writing program for the judges of the Ninth Circuit, they told me two sure-fire ways to tell that a lawyer has no case:

1. she asks for more pages to continue rambling;
2. he gets shrill, haughty, cute, and feigns disgust.

If you are a lawyer, don’t write this stuff. If you are not a lawyer, don't write this stuff. If you hire lawyers, don’t let them write it. If you hire lawyers, remember that in court, before a decision-making judge, your lawyer becomes you. You don't want that judge not to like you because she doesn't like how your lawyer waxes hyperbolic and disrespectful in a brief. For which you paid money. A lot of money.

And if you really want your lawyers to be effective on your behalf, insist they get WordRake to make their briefs to irascible, overworked judges more clear and concise.  WordRake was the first editing software created for the legal profession six years ago. It gives your lawyers an advantage, and they can try it for free for seven days by clicking here.

We’re shuffling around the Writing Style Bar with others who also write, reaching out, dropping and slopping and plopping all sorts of goop onto our sentences, anything to make the words go down better. We begin with our own fresh All-Natural Writing Style, squirt it with ketchup, slap it with mustard, sprinkle it with Worcestershire, A-1, maybe a little Tabasco, toss on some relish and onion, add avocado, bacon bits, mayonnaise, tomatillo, chopped almonds, shredded cheese, sliced olives, jalapeños, and top it with a dollop of sour cream. Somewhere beneath all of that same stuff everyone else has piled onto their Writing Styles lies our own pristine All-Natural Writing Style.

That’s the part we can’t help, our All-Natural Writing Style. It is our unique voice, a product of our personality, of our DNA, of our sibling rank, of where we grew up, who taught us English, where we went to school, how long we went to school, our parents' education, and topics discussed at the family dinner table or not. It is a product of every experience we have ever had, how we have been shaped, how we have endured, how we have prevailed, how we have come to where we are in our lives at this moment. Why would we adulterate what is uniquely ours?

But here we are, circling the Writing Style Bar with all of the other managers and lawyers and engineers and students and architects and teachers and accountants, spooning up and piling on the same wilted verbiage and expecting our clients and colleagues to appreciate what’s on our plate. We squirt it with “net-net,” slap it with “bottom line," sprinkle it with “at the end of the day,” toss on some “suffice it to say” and “impacts our productivity,” add chopped acronyms, office insider slang, corporate speak, Twitter jargon, and top it with a dollop of “that being said.” Somewhere beneath all of that is a clear thought.

A hint: Read good writing, feel what is good about it, and transfer that feeling to the page in your own words. Then think about those words. Think about what they mean, and what they don’t mean, and if they mean nothing, delete them.

If at all possible, I need to finish the SharePoint migration before Monday.

If there are any issues that have come up, feel free to let me know and I’ll pass them on to corporate.

And, if that was not enough, PSU filed two more answers.

Let’s face facts: For years, universities have looked at their law schools as profit centers.

Insurance companies, for their part, can’t refuse you coverage.

Our mistake is assuming we have to feed at the same Writing Style Bar where everyone else feeds. Or any Writing Style Bar.

One last point: unless you are Mark Twain (unlikely) or Will Rogers (also unlikely), don’t try to affect a breezy, folksy, down-home style. It will sound stilted and false because it’s unnatural. Speak with your own well-reasoned, or humorous, or colorful, or spare, or intrigued, or informed, or sincere voice, and let your reader hear it clearly.

Now I’ll stop, and take Will’s advice: “Never miss a good chance to shut up.”

Turn certain adjectives into verbs.

Recently, we discussed nominalizations, nouns that should be verbs, and how they slow and dull our writing. Some adjectives present in a similar pattern, and we enliven our sentences by also turning these adjectives into verbs.

And they are compliant comply with the U. S. Green Building Council’s LEED standards.

This trend is reflective of reflects the problems with the general economy.

We were successful succeeded in convincing the FCC to attach most of our desired openness principles.

A new title is required that is clearly indicative of indicates the invention.

However, the documents should be responsive respond to discovery requests.

SynCon’s ability to meet customer demand is dependent depends on its replacement of the 26-inch pipeline.

Writing to a partner is different differs from writing to a client.

Rather than have to remember this Tip, if we had used WordRake, the editing software would have edited each sentence exactly as you see it here.