Writing for Dollars, Writing to Please - Joseph Kimble
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Writing for Dollars,
Writing to Please
Joseph Kimble
There's one piece of unfinished business, one more link in the
chain, one last proof to be made against legalese. We who extol
plain language need to show, conclusively, that it works. We need
to show that it saves time and money and that it beats legalese in
every way with readers.
Call it the benefits of plain language. The literature contains
studies about these benefits, but no one has ever collected and
summarized the studies in a way that makes their full force apparent.
As you read the summaries in this article, try to imagine the costs of
poor writing — typified by officialese and legalese — in business,
government, and law. The costs are almost beyond imagining, and
certainly beyond calculating. If this evidence doesn't convince
organizations and individual writers that plain language can change
their fortunes, probably nothing will.
Getting Past the Myths About Plain Language
For years, plain-language advocates have sought to debunk the
myths and misconceptions about plain language. 1 I' ll briefly
m ention them again on ly because they are so stubborn and law y ers
can be so blinded by them . T hey need to be exposed at every
opportun ity .
First, plain language does not m ean baby talk or dum bing dow n
the language. It m eans clear and effective com m unication — the
opposite of legalese — and it has a long literary tradition.
1
See, e .g ., L A W R EF OR M C O M M ' N O F V IC T O R IA , PL A IN EN GL ISH A N D T H E L A W 45-52
(1987; repr. 1990); Robert W. Benson, The End o f Legalese: The Gam e Is Ov er, 13 N.Y.U.
R EV . L. & SO C . C HA NGE 519, 559-67 (1984–1985); Joseph Kimble, An sw e r in g t he C ri ti c s
o f Pl ai n La n g u ag e, 5 SC RIBES J. L EGAL W R IT IN G 51 (1994–1995).2 The Scr ibes Jou rn al of Leg al Writin g 1996–1997
Second, pl ai n lan gu age and pr ecision ar e com plem en tar y goal s,
not antagonists. The choice between clarity and precision is usually
a fal se choice. C ountless projects w orldw ide h ave show n that even
com plex subjects can be tr an slated into pl ai n lan gu age w ith no loss
of accuracy or precision. (The most recent example is the Securiti es
and Exchan ge C om m ission ' s pilot program to w ri te parts of
disclosure docu m ents in plain lan guage. 2) If any thi ng, pl ain language
is m o r e pr ecise than traditional legal writing because it uncovers the
am bigu iti es and error s that traditional sty le, w ith al l its excesses,
tends to hide. People and organizations that u nder tak e plain -lan guage
projects are routin ely surpr ised, and som etimes terri fied, by the
deficien cies they discover in their trusted old documents. So plain
lan guage is not only the great clarifier — it im prov es accuracy as
w ell.
T hir d, plain language is not subverted by the need to use techni cal
ter m s or terms of art. Real terms of art are a tiny part of any legal
docum ent. W hat's more, lawy ers have an exaggerated notion of the
extent to w hich legal term s are precise or are settled and
un chan geable. I invite any one to find a case say ing that giv e w on't do
in a w ill — that it has to be giv e, dev ise, an d b eque ath.
Fourth, pl ai n lan gu age is not ju st about vocabulary . It involves all
the techniques for clear comm unication — plannin g the docum ent,
designing it, organizing it, w riting clear sen ten ces, u sing plai n w ords,
and testing the document whenever possible on ty pical readers. W ell,
then, w hy not just use the term “clear communication”? For one
thi ng, “plain language” has come to signify the k ind of fundam ental
chan ge — in attitude and practice —that' s needed to finally break the
cy cle of poor legal writing. Plain language has transforming pow er.
For anoth er thi ng, a body of literature has grow n up around the
plain-lan guage m ovem ent. T hi s literatu re goes bey ond the ty pical
“sty le” texts in its w illingn ess to in novate, to consider research from
2
See Plain English Di sclosur e, 62 Fed. R eg. 3152, 3154 (1997).1996–1997 W r i t in g f o r D o ll ar s 3
various di sciplines, and to test its advice to show that readers are
better served by plain language.
Finally , contrary to w hat som e critics have said, there' s a pile of
hard evidence show ing that plain language is more under-standable
to readers than the tradition al sty le of official and legal w riting. I' ll
rev iew some of that ev iden ce in this arti cle.
G ath ering Ev idence A bou t Plain Langu age
T o m ost nonlawy ers, the benefits of plai n language are intui tiv e.
If readers understand plain language better, then no doubt they ' ll like
it better than the dense, im per son al pr ose of m ost public docu m en ts.
A nd because they u nderstand it better , th ey ' ll m ak e few er m istak es
in dealing w ith it, have fewer questions, and ultimately save tim e and
m oney — for th em selves and for the w ri ter' s comp any or agency .
There is, in fact, m uch inform al evidence to this effect. Tak e, for
exam ple, three publications called The Pr o d u c tiv ity o f Pl ain En g lish, 3
Ho w Plain En g lish W o r ks fo r Bu si n ess: T w e lv e C ase Stu d ie s, 4 and Plain
En glish fo r Be tte r Bu sin e ss. 5 Th ey are full of testimonials from officials
at trade associations (Am erican C oun cil of Life Insuran ce, A m erican
Gas A ssociation) and at busin esses (Shell O il, T arget Stor es, Pfizer,
Sentry Insuran ce, Bank of Am erica, Gen eral M otors). These officials
offer the eviden ce of t heir senses. T hey can see and feel th e change
that pl ai n lan gu age m ak es:
• It streamlines procedures and paperw ork , mak es it easier to
train staff, and incr eases staff productivi ty and m orale.
3
O FFIC E OF C O N SU M E R A F FA IR S, U .S. DEP ' T OF C O MM ER C E (1983).
4
O FFIC E OF C O N SU M E R A F FA IR S, U .S. DEP ' T OF C O MM ER C E (1984).
5
C O U NC IL OF BET T ER BU SINESS BU R EA U S, T EN T H A NN UA L W A SH IN G TO N FO RU M : A
SU MM AR Y OF PRO C EEDINGS (1986).4 The Scr ibes Jou rn al of Leg al Writin g 1996–1997
• It reduces confusion, complaints, and claim s, and it im proves
customer satisfaction.
• It incr eases sales and raises the company 's standing in the
m ark etplace.
But — and here is the irony — for th e ver y reason th at th ese
benefits are so apparent, companies and agencies are not inclined to
try to m easure them . W hy spend m ore m oney to study how m uch
m oney the company w as losing and is now saving? Rather, the
company k now s from experience that a docu m ent is causing trouble;
som ebody revises the document; and if the tr ouble seem s to go aw ay ,
the company calls it good.
T o do other w ise w ould require a cost-benefits study , w hich is
inherently difficult. Y ou hav e to collect before-and-after data about
the docum ent. H ow m any errors w as the staff having to correct, or
how m any phon e calls w as it getting? H ow long did i t tak e, on
aver age, to fix the error or answer th e call or process the document?
(Som etim es y ou hav e to m ak e a conservati ve estim ate.) T hen y ou
have to figure out h ow m uch th e staff' s tim e w as w orth. T hen y ou
have to calculate how m uch it cost to develop the new docum ent.
Finally , y ou have to get parallel data for the new document. A nd
after all that, y ou can' t be sure that y ou' ll realize sim ilar savings by
converting a different docum ent into plain lan guage. T here are too
m an y k inds of docu m en ts an d to o m an y var iab les.
Despite these difficulties and limitations, though, studies have
been done. M ost of them have been done not by accountan ts, not by
m an ager s, but by persons w ith a concern for w riting — consultan ts,
technical writers, and proponents of plain language. If numbers are
needed to m ak e the case for clear w riting, then we' ve got num ber s.1996–1997 W r i t in g f o r D o ll ar s 5
A ssessing t he St udies fr om a Legal Perspectiv e
I' ve divided th e studies, somewhat ar tificial ly , i nto tw o gr oups.
The first group r eflects the cost benefits of plain language for the
w riter's company or agency. The second group confirms the many
benefits of plain l angu age for the reader. Of course, the benefits for
the reader usually produce the benefits for the w riter's organization.
Y ou might ask, W hy should a law y er or ju dge care about th ese
studies? The reasons total four, at least.
First, law y ers and judges — w ho w rite for a living — surely care
about the effect their w ritin g has on readers. So even though some
lawy ers an d ju dges m igh t not be inspi red by th e studies on cost
sav ings, th e second gr oup of stu dies — on pleasing and persuading
readers — should be of particular i nterest.
Second, corporate law y ers and governm ent law y ers need to kn ow
w hat k inds of tangible an d intan gible har m their organi zation s m ay
suffer by clin gin g to legalese. A rmed with the evidence, en ligh tened
lawy ers can lead the w ay to plain-language reform.
T hir d, the studies contain philosophical lessons for al l w riter s,
including all law y ers. T he lessons may not be new , but th e studies
bear them ou t:
• W rite for y our readers. Select only th e content they need,
w ithout try in g to cover every concei vable detail, how ever
rem ote. Overprecision tends to be self-defeatin g, and per fect
precision is a dream. Since even private legal documents should
be flexible, the w riter often n eeds to use langu age that is vague
to som e appr opr iate degree. 6
• W ritin g m ajor pub lic docum ents in plain lan guage i nv olv es a
process. Y ou hav e to do m ore than sit in a r oom an d tr ust
y our intuition. You should consult w ith those who handle the
6
See BA R BA R A C HILD, DRA FTING L EGAL DO C U M EN TS 303-13 (2d ed. 1992); R EED
DIC KERSO N , T H E FU NDA MENT ALS OF L EGAL DRA FTING § 3.5 (2d ed. 1986).6 The Scr ibes Jou rn al of Leg al Writin g 1996–1997
docum ent, negotiate (if necessary) about som e of the chan ges,
an d test the docu m en t on ty pical reader s.
• W riting in plain language alm ost alw ay s im proves the content.
By improving the structure and sty le, y ou improve the
substance.
• R eader s are mor e lik ely to read docu m ents that ar e w ri tten in
plain language. It greatly increases y our chances of getting fully
and attentively heard.
Last, and equally important, the studies contain practical lessons
for all writers. Although only about half the studies and examples are
from legal do cu m en ts, rem ember th at legal w ritin g is just one k ind,
one subset, of technical w ritin g. T he sam e guideli nes and techn iques
should appl y across the boar d, to all k in ds of techni cal w ri tin g. O nce
again, th ese gu idelines are old new s, but the studies show that, u sed
sensibly , th ey w ork . H ere ar e some of them :
• Pay attention to documen t design — the ty peface, length of
line, white space, and so on.
• U se short sections, or subdivide longer on es.
• U se lots of headin gs. In public docum ents, try putting the
main headings in the form of a question.
• Group related ideas together, an d order the parts in a logical
sequence.
• A t the begin ni ng of most docum ents, have an executive
su m m ar y (for m em os and ju dicial op inions) or a purpose
statement (for legislation) or a table of contents (for manuals
an d lon g contr acts).
• Don' t hesitate to use exam ples, tables, an d ch ar ts.
• Elim inate u nnecessary w ords an d detai ls.1996–1997 W r i t in g f o r D o ll ar s 7
• Br eak up long senten ces.
• D on ' t put too m uch inform ation before or between the main
subject, verb, and object.
• Pr efer the activ e voice.
• Put th e cen tral action in ver bs, n ot in abstr act nouns.
• U se a list — at the end of the sentence — for multiple
conditions, consequen ces, or rules.
• T ry to address the r eader as “y ou” in pu blic docu m en ts.
• Gi ve shall the boot; use m u st instead.
• U se familiar w ords — the ones that are simple and dir ect and
human.
Behold, then, the 25 studies and reports that follow. T hose in the
first section show that plain language — in its full scope — can save
organizations a ton of money . T hose in th e second section cement
w hat w e probably k new all alon g: readers strongly prefer plain
lan guage in pu bli c and legal docu m ents, they un derstand it better
than legalistic sty le, they find it faster and easier to use, they are
more likely to com ply w ith i t, and th ey are m uch m ore lik ely to read
it in the fir st place.
C ategory 1 : Saving Time and Money
1. U.S.: Federal Communications Commission — Regulations7
W hen the FCC ' s regulations for C B radios w ere w ritten in
legalese, the agency needed five full -tim e staff mem bers to answ er
7
Plain La n g u ag e Pa y s, SIMPLY STATED No. 63 (Document Design Center), Feb. 1986, at
1, 4.8 The Scr ibes Jou rn al of Leg al Writin g 1996–1997
questions from the public. In 1977 or 1978, the FC C rew rote the
regulations in plai n lan guage and w as able to reassign th e five staff
members.
Incidentally , in the 20 y ears since, there has n ot been a single case
that implicates the plain language in those regulations. In fact, I could
find only three published cases that even cite the regulations in
passing. 8 So m uch for th e fear th at plain lan guage w ill create
litigation. If anything, it probably decreases litigation.
Below is a before-an d-after ex am ple that show s th e differ en ce ju st
in headin gs, w hi ch are vitally important to readers w ho com e to legal
docum ents w anting to find answ ers to their questions. (T he ex am ples
are from T itl e 47 of the C o d e o f Fe de ral R eg u latio n s.)
Before:
§ 95.455 Auth or iz ed frequencies.
§ 95.457 Poli cy governin g the availabili ty of frequencies.
§ 95.437 Li mit ations on antenna structures.
§ 95.511 Tran smit ter service and maintenance.
§ 95.613 Transmitter power.
§ 95.509 Extern al radio frequency pow er am plifiers proh ibited
After (as they appear in the 1997 C .F.R.):
§ 95.407 On w hat chan nels may I operate?
§ 95.408 H ow high m ay I put m y antenna?
§ 95.409 What equipment may I use at my CB station?
§ 95.410 H ow mu ch pow er m ay I use?
§ 95.411 May I use pow er am plifiers?
8
See U nited States v. Basey , 816 F.2d 980, 992 n.21 (5th Cir. 1987); Am erican Radio Relay
League, Inc. v. Federal C ommunications Comm ' n, 617 F.2d 875, 878 (D.C. C ir. 1980);
Peopl e v. Burk es, 318 N.W .2d 535, 537 (Mich. C t. App. 1992).1996–1997 W r i t in g f o r D o ll ar s 9
2. U.S.: Department of Veterans Affairs — Form Letters 9
T his is an example of a project done right. It involved enlisting
the help of a w riting consultant, train ing the staff, testing the
docu m en ts, revising them in light of the testing, and then try ing to
m easure the ben efi ts.
The project, called “W riti ng for R eal People,” was conducted at
the VA regional offices in Jack son, M ississippi, an d Little R ock ,
A r k ansas. In February 1991, the consultant began training the VA
letter w riters. A s part of the trai ning, the w riters revised some of the
VA 's form letters. To make sure that the new form letters w ork ed,
they w ere tested in tw o w ay s: through cued-response protocol tests,
in w hich veterans read the letters out loud and tried to paraphrase
them at certai n spots; and through focus groups. The new letters
w ere then fur ther r evised.
T his project bears w itness to the fundam ental truth that good
w riting w ill im prove the con tent: “In r evisin g these letters, the
w riters do m uch m ore than m er ely sim plify sentences and shorten
w ords. Th ey rethink the entire letter. Often their revisions result in
radicall y changed content to better m eet the readers' n eeds.”10
The VA then tried to measure the results. In Jack son, the agency
asked five ben efits counselors how m any phone calls they received
about a selected old letter in one y ear and abou t th e new letter in the
next y ear. Th e counselors hadn' t k ept a log, but their indi vidu al
estimates w er e quite consistent. (T hey figu red calls per m onth, w hich
w ere then m ulti plied by 12.) R esults for the old letter : 750 sent out
and 1,128 call s received. For the n ew letter: 710 sent ou t and 192 calls
received. T he VA project coordin ator estimated th at the savings on
this o n e le tte r alo n e , if adopted at VA offices nation w ide, w ould be
9
Reva Daniel & William Schuetz, VA' s “Wr iting for Real People” Pays Off (May 1994)
(unpublished report, on file wi th author); see al so Reva Daniel, Rev ising Letters to
Ve te ran s, 42 T EC H N IC A L C O M M . 69 (1995) (containing most of the same information,
but not the estimated dollar savi ngs and the sampl e letters cited in this summary ).
10
Daniel & Schuetz, supra note 9, at 6-4; Daniel, supra note 9, at 70.10 The Scr ibes Jou rn al of Leg al Writin g 1996–1997
more than $40,000 a y ear. A nd rem em ber that the VA sends out
thousan ds of differ en t letter s.
Below are the ol d and new letter s. 11 N otice just some of the
im provem ents in the new one: it pr ovi des a context; it divides up the
inform ation and uses headings; it uses m ore w hi te space; it's simple
and dir ect (“Send us . . . .”); it cuts out unn ecessary detail, like the
comm ent about not having to get a new examination and the citation
to th e U n it ed St at es C o d e ; and it uses contractions.
Before:
Dear _______________:
Please furnish medical evidence in support of y our pension claim. The best evidence
to submit w ould be a report of a recent examination by y our personal physician,
or a report from a hospital or clinic that has treated you recently. The report
should include complete findings and diagnoses of the condition w hich r enders you
permanently and totally disabled. It is not necessary for y ou to receive an
examin ation at this time. We only need a report from a doctor, hospital, or clinic
that has treated you recently.
This evidence should be submit ted as soon as possible, prefer ably w it hin 60 day s.
If w e do not receive this information within 60 day s from the date of this letter,
y our claim w ill be denied. Evidence must be received in the Departm ent of
Veterans Affairs wit hin one y ear from th e date of this letter; oth erw ise, benefits,
if entitlem ent is established, may not be paid prior to the date of its receipt. SHOW
V ET ER A N ' S FU LL NAME AND VA FIL E NU MBER ON ALL EVIDEN C E
SUBM ITTED.
Pri vacy A ct Inform ation: T he information requested by th is letter is authorized by
existing law (38 U .S.C. 210 (c)(1)) and is considered necessary and relevant to
determine entit lement to maximum benefits applied for under the law. The
information submitted may be disclosed outside the Department of Veterans
Affairs only as permitted by law .
____________________
Adjudi cation O fficer
11
Daniel & Schuetz, supra note 9, at 6-25 to -26.1996–1997 W r i t in g f o r D o ll ar s 11
After:
Dear _______________:
W e have your claim for a pension. Our laws require us to ask y ou for more
information. The informat ion y ou give us will h elp us decide whether w e can pay
y ou a pension.
W hat W e Need
Send us a medical report from a doctor or clinic that y ou visited in the past six
months. The report should show why y ou can't work.
Please take this letter and the enclosed Guide to your doctor.
W hen W e Need It
W e need the doctor's report by Januar y 28, 1992. We'll have to turn down y our
claim if we don' t get t he report by that dat e.
You r Right to Priv acy
The information y ou give us is private. We might have to give out this
information in a few special cases. But we will not give it out to the gen eral public
without y our perm ission. W e've attached a form w hich explains y our privacy
rights.
If y ou have any questions about this letter, y ou may call us at 1-800-827-1000. The
call i s free.
Sincerely,
____________________
Enclosures: Doctor's Guide, Your Privacy R ights12 The Scr ibes Jou rn al of Leg al Writin g 1996–1997
3. U.S.: Naval Officers — Business Memos12
In the next section, under item 8, I sum m arize a 1989 study of
naval officers w ho r ead a business m em o that w as w ri tten either in
a pl ai n sty le or in a bureaucr atic sty le. O fficers w ho read the plain
m emo, besides havin g significantly high er com prehen sion, took 17%
to 23% less tim e to read it and felt less need to reread it.
In another study tw o y ears later, the authors put dollar figures on
their results. T hey determ ined th e average hour ly pay for a naval
officer. T hey then constructed tw o scenarios: one used a very low
estim ate of how m an y pages of r eports an d m em os an officer reads
in a year; the other used a more likely estimate. In each case, the
authors applied the reading-time differences, in seconds per page,
from their original study .
U nder the first scenario, the N avy w ould save between $27 and
$37 m illion w orth of time each y ear if its officers routinely read plain
w ritin g. U nder the second scenario, the savin gs w ould total betw een
$53 and $ 73 million. Even more staggering are th e savin gs if all naval
personnel (not just officers) read plain docum ents: $250 to $350
million a year.
T hat is just one k ind of cost benefit measured across just one
gover nm ent agency .
4. U.S.: Allen-Bradley Company — Computer Manuals 13
W hen A llen-Bradley surv ey ed the mark etplace for its pro-
gramm able computers, it found that the docum ents that accom-pany
the product w ere the second m ost im por tan t factor (after
w ork m anship) in influencing customers to buy . W ith the help of
12
James Suchan & Robert Colucci, The High Cost of Bureaucratic Written
C o m m u n ic at io n s, 34 BU S. C O M M . 68 (1991).
13
Barry Jereb, Pl ai n En g li sh o n th e Pl an t Fl o o r, in PL A IN L AN GUA GE: PR IN C IP LES A N D
PR AC T IC E 207 (Erw in R. Steinberg ed., 1991).1996–1997 W r i t in g f o r D o ll ar s 13
w riting consul tan ts, the com pan y developed a training program for
its w riters, prepared a sty le man ual for its w riters and one for its
ven dors, and began to review its computer manuals. The new
manuals w ere tested — that cri tical step again — and further revised
before the com pan y put them into the field. A nd as just one benefit
from the new plain-English m anuals, calls to the company 's phone
center fell dram aticall y — from m ore th an 50 a day to only 2 a
month.
Below is a short bit from the company ' s sty le man ual for
ven dors. 14 N otice the use of personal pronouns and the activ e voice.
People w ho w rite for the public should have learned those lessons a
long tim e ago.
Help Users Pictur e Themselves in the Text
G uideline 1 : Address the reader directly.
O riginal
It is suggested that the wire should be connected to the
term inal by the engineer w hen the switch-box assembly
is completed.
Revised
W e suggest that you connect the wir e to the ter-min al
wh en you finish assembling the switch-box.
5. U.S.: General Electric Company — Software Manuals 15
Different com pany , sam e story . T he techni cal w riter s at Gener al
Electric Information Services, working as part of indiv idu al pr odu ct
team s, dev el op high -qu ality m anuals for the com pany ' s softw are. In
14
Id. at 212.
15
Cathy J. Spencer & Diana Kilbourn Yates, A Goo d User's Guide Means Few er Support
Calls and Low er Support Co sts, 42 T EC H N IC A L C O M M . 52 (1995).14 The Scr ibes Jou rn al of Leg al Writin g 1996–1997
one test, custom ers w ho used an earlier version of the man ual m ade
about 125 m ore cal ls a month than customers w ho used the clearly
w ritten, approved man ual. A pply ing indu stry standards for the
average cost of support calls, the company estim ates that it saves
betw een $22,000 and $375,000 a y ear for each bu siness customer w ho
uses the revised manual.
6. U.S.: Federal Express — Operations Manuals 16
From 1992 to 1995, a consultan t w ork ed w ith th e technical
w riters at Federal Express to reorganize and revise the company 's
ground-operations manuals. The team took all the steps: they did a
field study of users, tested the old m anu als for u sability , and
com par ed the manuals to ben chm ark standar ds. T he team iden tified
th e follow in g needs (am on g ot hers):
• A n organization based on user task s rather than form al job
titles.
• A m ore accessible and readable form at.
• Better tables of conten ts an d index es.
• Im pr ovem en ts in th e r eadabi lity of th e text through font
chan ges and w ri tin g sty le.
• Su bstantial ly incr eased use of gr ap hics and tables.
In the testing, readers of the old m anu als search ed for an av erage
of 5 minu tes to find information and found the correct answ er only
53% of th e tim e. W ith th e n ew m an ual s, th e aver age search time
dropped to 3.6 m inutes, and the success rate impr oved to 80%. W ith
16
JoAnn T. H ackos & Jul ian S. Winstead, Finding O ut What Users Ne ed an d Giv ing It to
Them : A Case Stu dy at Federal Express, 42 T EC H N IC A L C O M M . 322 (1995).1996–1997 W r i t in g f o r D o ll ar s 15
som e further improvements to the index, the team estimates — very
conservatively — that the new m anuals w ould save the company
$400,000 in the first year, just in the time that employees spend
searching for inform ation. T hat' s not coun ting costs that flow from
getting w rong answ er s.
7. Canada: Alberta Agriculture, Food, and Rural Development —
Forms17
A w riting consultant, Susan Bary lo, began w ork ing w ith A lberta
A griculture in 1993 to r evise its form s. Again, she didn't just start
rew ritin g; instead, she has a process for gathering inform ation from
the form's “sponsor ” w ith in th e organization , fr om ever y staff
m em ber w ho touches it, including those who produce and print it,
and from the readers w ho fill it in. She ask s the sponsor to figure out
thi ngs like the form ' s return rate and error rate and the staff tim e to
fix err ors. A nd before th e final prin tin g, she tests it on at least seven
ty pical user s.
O ver thr ee y ears, Bary lo r evised 92 of the 700 or so forms in the
department' s inv entor y . M ore th an a m illion copies of those 92
forms are used each y ear. Her evidence shows that the department
is saving at least 10 minutes on each new form it r eceives — w hi ch
she say s is a conservative estim ate. Total savings each y ear for the 92
form s: about C an$3.5 mill ion. H ere's a glimpse at the kin ds of
sav ings:
• O n a form to request free trees, the error r ate fell from 40% to
20%. For each incor rect form , the staff has to call the applican t
and clar ify th e order . T he n ew form saved about 18 day s'
w orth of staff tim e.
17
Christine Mowat, Alberta Ag r ic u lt u re Sa v e s Mo n e y w i th Pl ai n La n g u ag e, C LARITY No.
38, Jan. 1997, at 6; Susan Barylo, Handouts for “Plain Language in Progress 97”
Conference (Sept. 25, 1997) (on file w ith author).16 The Scr ibes Jou rn al of Leg al Writin g 1996–1997
• O n a form to apply for an agricultural-society operating grant,
the processing tim e w as reduced from 20 m in utes to 3 m inutes,
again saving about 18 days a y ear.
• O n a registrati on cer tificate for liv estock , less than 40% of the
producers updated it as requir ed; now 95% of them update it
w ith ou t any pr om pting by th e staff.
8. U.K.: Royal Mail — Form 18
Siegel & Gal e, an A m erican firm, is one of the pioneers in the
plain -langu age movem ent. O ver th e last 25 y ears, the firm has
simpli fied business and legal docu m ents — through plai n language,
logical structur e, and clear design — for hun dreds of com pan ies
w orldw ide.
Before Siegel & Gale clarified a redirection-of-mail form for the
R oy al Mail (the British postal service), there w as an 87% error r ate
w hen custom ers filled it ou t. R oy al M ail w as spendin g over £10,000
a w eek to deal w ith com plai nts an d to reprocess th e incorrect form s.
The new form redu ced the err or r ate dram atically , so that R oy al
M ai l sav ed £500,000 in ju st the n ex t nine m onths.
9. U.K.: British Telecom — Bill19
Br itish T elecom w as receiving almost a million inq uir ies a y ear
from customers about their phon e bills. Siegel & Gale “w ork ed w ith
BT to organize information logically — providing summ ary billing
inform ation on the first page an d m ore detai l on follow -on pages.
18
Siegel & Gale, Proposal for [X] Rental Car C ompany 25 (Apr. 16, 1997) (on file with
author) (summ arizing several of the firm' s projects, including the Roy al Mail project).
19
Siegel & Gale, BT —A Phon e Bill That Ev ery on e Can Unde rstand (visited Oct. 17, 1997)
< http://ww w.siegelgale.com/simplified/bt.html> .1996–1997 W r i t in g f o r D o ll ar s 17
[The revisions] grouped charges, explained them in clear, simple
lan guage, and pr ovided easy -to-un derstand calculation s.”20 W ith the
new bill, the number of customer complain ts and inqu iries fell by
25%. A lso, customers paid the new bill more promptly, improving
cash flow an d reducing the cost of collecting over due bills.
10. U.K.: British Government — Forms21
In 1982, the British gover nm ent issued a White Paper,
Adm in istrativ e For m s in Go v ern m en t, requiring that all departmen ts
un dertak e a continuous and thorough program to eliminate forms
w hen ever po ssible and to sim plify the rest. W hat follow ed w as
probably th e m ost exten sive w ork on form s that an y governm ent has
ever carried out. In each of the next three y ears, 1983 through 1985,
the C abinet Office prepared for the Prime Minister a lengthy,
detai led report describing the activities of every government
department. T hose r eports ar e filled w ith referen ces to forms
eliminated, forms revised, money saved, awards w on, training
accomplished, special units created, tens of thousands of book lets
(like Th e W o r d Is . . . Plain En g lish and G o o d Fo r m s G u id e)
distributed, and w ork done by the ever-present Plain English
C am paign. T he item s below are m ostly from the 1985 report:
• By 1985, the gover nm en t had scr ap ped 15,700 ty pes of form s,
im proved another 21,300, and revi ew ed another 46,900.
• By 1985, the esti m ated cost savings to the departments totaled
about £9 million.
20
Id.
21
C A BIN ET O FFIC E, M AN AGEMENT A ND PER SO N N EL O FF IC E, R EVIEW OF
A DMINISTRAT IVE FO R M S: T HIRD PROGR ESS R EPO RT TO TH E PR IM E M INIST ER (1985)
(these reports don' t have page numbers; they are on file w ith author).18 The Scr ibes Jou rn al of Leg al Writin g 1996–1997
• The cost of producing the new form s w as less than half the
m oney they saved. An d m ost of the production costs w ere
presum ably one-time costs, while the forms w ould continu e to
save m oney each y ear.
• Exam ple: a legalistic “N otice Claiming the Right to Buy ,”
from the Depar tm ent of Envi ron m ent. T he old form had an
error rate of about 60% in one London test borough; the new
form redu ced th e err or rat e to below 5%.
• A nother exam ple: a form called “Du ty Free A llow ances,”
from the Departm ent of C ustoms and Exci se. On this form,
used for m issing or delay ed baggage, the error rate w as reduced
from 55% to 3%. The new form cost £2,500 and saves £33,000
a y ear in staff ti m e — not to m en ti on 7,500 h ou rs for
passengers.
• One more example: a form called “C ivi lian T ravel C laim
For m ,” from the M inistry of Defence. O ver 750,000 are filled
out each y ear. The new form cut the error rate by half, the
time to complete it by 10%, and the processing tim e by 15%.
It cost £12,000 and saves £400,000 a y ear i n staff tim e.
• In an independent study for the Department of H ealth and
Social Secur ity , C oopers & Ly bran d concluded th at the annual
cost to the agency of errors on its form s w as “of the order of
£675 m illi on,” that the costs to employ ers and m embers of the
public w ere “of sim ilar m agnitu de,” and that th e total costs
from one comm on form alone w ere £3.5 million.22
11. Australia: Victorian Government — Legal Form 23
22
Coopers & Ly brand Associates, Dep't of Health and Social Security, Forms
Effectiveness Study 1, 30 (July 1984) (on file w ith author).
23
PL A IN EN GL ISH A N D T H E L A W , supra note 1, at 68-69; R OBERT D. EA G LESO N ,
W R IT IN G IN PL A IN EN GLISH 6, 72-73 (1990; repr. 1994).1996–1997 W r i t in g f o r D o ll ar s 19
In the m id-1980s, the L aw R eform C om m ission of Vict oria
produ ced a m onu m ental four-volum e study called Plain En g lish an d
the Law . It shou ld hav e ended all the debate, then an d there.
A s a small part of that study , the C omm ission completely
redesigned and rew rote an old legal -sty le court sum m ons. W ith the
new form, the Victorian government w as able to r eassign 26 staff
m em ber s, including 15 from the police force — and save the
equival en t of A us$400,000 a y ear in staff sal ar ies.
C ategor y 2: Pleasing an d Per suading R eader s
1. U.S.: Judges and Lawyers — Various Legal Documents 24
In 1987, a coll eague and I sent a surv ey to 300 M ich igan judges
and 500 law y ers. W e received responses from 425. W e asked readers
simply to check off their preference for the A or B version of six
different paragraphs from various legal documents. O ne version of
each paragraph w as in plain language and the oth er in traditi onal
legal sty le. N eith er the sur vey itself nor th e cover letter referred to
“legalese” or “plain English.” Rath er, the cover letter said the survey
w as part of an effort to “test langu age trends in the legal profession.”
The sam e study w as then repeated in thr ee other states — Flor ida,
Lou isiana, and Texas. In Louisiana and Texas, only judges w ere
surv ey ed. A ll told, 1,462 judges and law y ers retu rn ed th e survey .
A nd in all four states, they preferred the plain -lan guage versions by
m argin s ru nn ing from 80% to 86%. A slam dun k .
H ere is one of th e six paragrap hs, tak en from ju ry instr uctions. 25
(O f cour se, w e didn't alw ay s put th e plain-langu age version second.)
24
Joseph Kimble & Joseph A. Prok op, Jr., Strike Three for Legalese, 69 M IC H . B.J. 418
(1990) (reporting the results in Michigan, Florida, and Louisiana); Kevin Dubose, The
Court Has Ruled, T H E SEC O N D DRA FT (Legal Writing Institute), Oct. 1991, at 8
(reporting the results in Texas).
25
Kimble & Prokop, supra note 24, at 419.20 The Scr ibes Jou rn al of Leg al Writin g 1996–1997
A [ ] One test th at is helpful in determin in g w het her or not a person was
negligent is to ask and answer w hether or not, if a person of ordinary
pru dence had been in the same situation and possessed of the same
k now ledge, he w ould have foreseen or anticipated that someone might
have been injured by or as a result of his action or inaction. If such a
result from certain conduct w ould be foreseeable by a person of
ordinary pru dence with like knowledge and in like situation, and if the
conduct reasonably could be avoidable, then not to avoid it w ould be
negligence.
B [ ] To decide whether th e defendant w as negl igent, th ere is a test y ou can
use. C onsider how a reasonably careful person w ould have acted in the
same situation. To find the defendant negligent, you would have to
answ er “y es” to the fol low in g tw o questions:
1) W ould a reasonably careful person have r ealiz ed in advance that
someone might be injured by the defendant's conduct?
2) C ould a reasonably careful person have avoided behaving as
defendant did?
If y our answ er to both of these questions is “y es,” then the defendant
w as negligent. You can use the same test in deciding whether the
plaintiff was negligent.
N otice that th e B version u ses shorter sentences; it addr esses jurors
as “y ou”; it avoids redundant pairs lik e f o r e se e n o r a n t i c i pa t e d and b y
o r as a re su lt o f; instead of the multiple conditions at the beginning of
the last senten ce in A (a so-called left-bran ch ing senten ce), it uses a
list at th e end of a sentence; and it defines “negligence” positively .
Version B is no shorter th an version A , but plain language does not
al w ay s m ean th e few est po ssible w ords.
2. U.S.: Appellate Judges and Law Clerks — Appellate Briefs 26
26
Robert W. Benson & Joan B. Kessler, Legalese v . Pl ai n En g li sh : An Em p ir ic al St ud y o f
Pe rsu asi o n an d C re dib ilit y in Appe llat e Br ie f W rit in g , 20 L O Y . L.A. L. R EV . 301 (1987).1996–1997 W r i t in g f o r D o ll ar s 21
T his study involved 10 judges and 33 research attorneys at the
C alifornia C ourt of A ppeal in Los Angeles. Th e judges and attorney s
w ere given alternative versions of tw o paragraphs from appellate
documents. One w as a headn ote, or ar gum entative headin g, tak en
from an appellate brief. The other w as a paragraph from a petition
for rehearing. Once again, the paragraphs w ere not labeled as
“traditional legalese” and “plain English.” Th e judges and attorn ey s
w ere asked to rate the different versions in a n um ber of categories,
indicating how persuasive, logical, and com prehensible each version
w as and w hether th e w riter w as fr om a prestigiou s law fir m .
C an y ou gu ess the r esu lts? By statistically significant m argins, the
readers rated the passages in legalese to be “substanti vely w eak er and
less persuasive than the plain English versions.”27 W hat' s m ore, they
in ferred that th e w ri ters of the plain -lan guage versions came from
m ore prestigious law firm s.
H ere are the altern ative paragr aphs from the petition for
reh earing. 28
27
Id. at 301.
28
Id. at 309, 311.22 The Scr ibes Jou rn al of Leg al Writin g 1996–1997
First Version:
PETITIO N FOR REHEA RING
Needless to say, we disagree with much that is set forth in th e C ourt of
A ppeal' s O p in i o n herein. N everth eless, th is Petition for Rehearin g is
restricted to but a single aspect of the said O p in i o n . T his single aspect is the
one which pertains to that ratification of an act of his agent w hich is
submitt ed to flow from the facts as represented by M r. Jones to the Superior
C ourt (O p in i o n : page 4, line 2 to page 5, lin e 2, page 11, li ne 7 to page 12,
line 19). Specifically , we respectfully submit that the C ourt of Appeal' s view s
relative to the assumed non -existence of such ratificati on, are pr edicated
upon a factual assumption w hich is disclosed by the re co rd to be i n c o r r e c t.
This being so, we submit that the actu al facts, revealed by the re co rd , are such
as clearly to entitle us to prevail in respect of the ratification th eo ry .
Second Version:
PETITIO N FOR REHEA RING
Alth ough we disagree with much of the C ourt of Appeal's opinion, we
limit this Petition for Rehear ing to a single aspect: T he qu estion of wh ether
Mr. Jones ratified the act of his agent. T he C ourt found th at he did not
(O p in i o n , pp. 4-5, 11-12). W e respectfully submit th at this findin g w as based
upon a misreading of the facts. The C ourt assumed facts that were clearly
contrary to those in the trial recor d w hich poi nted to ratificati on. W e are,
ther efore, entit led to a reh earin g.
The second version is shorter; it has shorter sentences; it straightens
out the tangle of prepositional ph rases in the origin al th ir d sentence
(“T his single aspect . . . .”); it replaces a lot of inflated diction (relativ e
to , a ssu m e d n o n -e xi st en c e , pr ed ic ate d u po n , are suc h as to , in r espe ct o f);
it uses ver bs (r a t i fi e d , a ssu m e d ) instead of abstr act nouns (r atific atio n ,
assu m ptio n ); and it' s general ly straigh tforw ard and sincer e.1996–1997 W r i t in g f o r D o ll ar s 23
3. U.S.: Lawyers — Court Rules29
T he U nited States Supreme C ourt, in A pril 1998, gave final
approv al to a rem ark ably progr essive set of cour t ru les. T he Federal
R ul es of A ppellate Procedure have now been revised as a possible
first step to w ar d redrafting all th e feder al court rules.
The revised rules wer e not form ally tested, but tw o comm ittees
of distinguished judges and law y ers review ed the draft version and
suggested fur ther im provem ents. Th e ru les w ere then di ssem in ated
for comm ent. Of the 18 persons w ho responded, all but one w ere
strongly in favor. Th is sam ple may be sm all, but the results confirm
w hat the previous tw o studi es show : w hen the argu m ent com es
dow n to concrete cases, w hen l aw y ers can see traditi onal l egal
w riting side by side w ith plain language, the w inner is clear. Y ou can
see for y ourself in this exam ple: 30
Old Rule (Fed. R . A pp. P. 3(e)):
(e) Payment of fees. — U pon the filing of any separate or joint notice of
appeal from the district court, the appellant shall pay to the clerk of the
district court such fees as are established by statute, an d also th e dock et fee
prescri bed by the Judicial C onferen ce of the United States, the latter to be
received by th e clerk of the di str ict court on behalf of the court of appeals.
29
Carol Ann M ooney , Minutes of the Advisory Comm ittee on A ppell ate R ules 1 (Apr.
3 & 4, 1997) (on file with author).
30
C OMMITTEE O N R U LES OF PRA C TICE AN D PRO C EDUR E O F T H E J U D IC IA L
C O NFER EN C E OF T H E U .S., PRELIMINARY DRA FT OF PRO POSED R EVISION OF THE
FED ER A L R U L ES O F A PP ELL A TE PR O C ED U R E 5 (1996); see al so BR Y A N A. GA R N ER ,
GU IDEL INES F O R DRA FTING AN D EDITING C OURT R ULES (1996) (explaining the
drafting pr inciples used in revising the federal rules).24 The Scr ibes Jou rn al of Leg al Writin g 1996–1997
New Rule:
(e) Payment of Fees. U pon filing a notice of appeal, the appellant m ust pay
the district clerk all requ ired fees. The district clerk receives the appellate
dock et fee on behalf of the court of appeals.
4. U.S.: Lawyers — Judicial Opinions
A s far as I k now , no one h as ev er tested ju dici al opinions. I' m
now doing th at w ith a r andom selection of M ichigan law y er s. T hey
are getting tw o versions of a short appellate opinion, together w ith
a few questions to answ er. The opinions are identified only as X and
O . A m ong oth er di fferen ces, one opinion begins w ith a summ ary
that states and answ ers the deep issue; 31 it sum m arizes at oth er places
in the opinion; it uses headings; and it cites only the controlling
cases.
In initial testing, that opinion w as the one preferred by 66% of
law y er s. Look for a full repor t in the nex t volu m e of the Sc r i b e s
Jo ur n al.
M eanw hile, her e is th e differ en ce in th e tw o first par agrap hs:
Opinion O:
Plainti ff Robert W ills filed a declaratory judgment action against
defendant State Farm Insurance Company to determine whether defendant
has a duty to pay benefits under the uninsured motorist provisions found in
plaintiff's policy w ith defendant. Pursuant to the parties' stipulated statement
of facts, the trial court granted summar y disposit ion in plainti ff's favor upon
finding coverage where gunshots fired from a unidentified automobile
passing plaintiff's vehi cle caused plaintiff to drive off the road and suffer
inju ries. Defendant appeals as of right. W e reverse and rem and.
31
See Bryan A . Garner, The Deep Issue: A New Approach to Fram ing Legal Q u est io n s, 5
SC RIBES J. L EGAL W R IT IN G 1 (1994–1995).1996–1997 W r i t in g f o r D o ll ar s 25
Opinion X:
Su mm ar y
Robert W ills was in jur ed w hen someon e drove by him and fired shots
toward his car, causing him to swerve into a tree. He filed a declaratory-
judgment action to determ ine w hether State Farm had to pay him uni nsured-
motorist benefits. Th e issue is wheth er there w as a “substantial phy sical
nexus” betw een the uni dentified car and W ills's car. T he trial court answer ed
y es and granted a summary disposition for Wills. We disagree an d rever se.
W e do not find a substantial physical nexus between the two cars because the
bull ets were not project ed by th e unidenti fied car it self.
5. U.S.: Law Students and Law-School Staff — Legislation32
In 1995, three of us revised into plain language the South A frican
Hum an Rig hts Co m m issio n Bill as a demonstration project for South
A frica' s M ini stry of Justice. I tested the tw o versions on 43 law
stu dents and 24 staff m em bers at my school. R eader s of the revised
version w ere about 19% more accur ate in answ eri ng questions. T hey
w ere also 7% faster. And on a scale of 1 (very easy ) to 10 (very har d),
they rated the original statute at 6.52 and th e revised version at 4.35,
for an im provem ent of about 33%. 33
32
Kimble, supra note 1, at 69, 71.
33
Cf. PHILIP KN IG H T, C LEARLY BET T ER DR A F TIN G : A R EP OR T TO T H E PL A IN EN GLISH
C AM PAIGN 18, 26, 34 (1996) (reporting similar, and in some respects better, results
from testing the bill in South Africa); Kimble, supra note 1, at 62-65, 69-70 (citing more
than a dozen additional studies showing that plain language improves comprehension).26 The Scr ibes Jou rn al of Leg al Writin g 1996–1997
6. U.S.: General Public — Government Regulations34
Earlier, I mentioned the FC C ' s w ork in the late 1970s on
regulations for C B radios. In th e early 1980s, the FC C reorgani zed
and rew rote its regulations for m arine radios on recreational bo ats.
(A pparently , though, the new rules w ere never incorporated into the
C o d e o f Fe de ral R eg u latio n s but w ere put only in a booklet for the
publi c.) T he FC C asked th e Docum ent Design C enter — another
pioneering or ganization — to test the old and new versions. Readers
of the old ru les got an average of 10.66 question s right ou t of 20;
readers of th e n ew rules got an aver age of 16.85 righ t. T he aver age
response tim e im proved from 2.97 minu tes to 1.62 minu tes. Finally,
on a scale of 1 (very easy ) to 5 (very har d), readers rated the old r ul es
at 4.59 and th e new ru les at 1.88.
In revi sing these rules, the FC C adhered to what may be the
har dest pr incipl e of all to follow, because it involves judgment and
restraint — don't try to cover every rem ote possibi lit y un der the sun:
Probably the most important guideline used in revising the FCC 's marine
radio rules . . . was one that would say “select only the content that the
audience needs.” Th e rules for recr eational boater s wer e originally mi xed
in with rules for ocean lin ers and merchant ships and were loaded down
w it h excepti on s and rules to handle unusual cases. 35
The cardinal rule of clarity is to put y ourself solidly in the m inds
of y our readers: w hat w ould th ey lik e to k now , and how w ould they
lik e to get it?
34
J A N IC E C. R EDISH , H O W T O W RITE R EGULAT IONS AN D O T H ER L EGAL DOCU MENTS
IN C L EA R EN GLISH 42-43 (1991); Janice C. R edish et al., Ev a lu at in g t he Ef fe c ts o f
Docum ent Design Principles, 2 INFO . DESIGN J. 236 (1981).
35
Redish et al., supra note 34, at 240.1996–1997 W r i t in g f o r D o ll ar s 27
7. U.S.: General Public — Government Letters36
T he Veterans Adm inistration has centralized its efforts to w rite
clear er letters to th e veterans it serves. T he VA is w ork ing w ith
consultants on a pr ogram called “Reader-Focused W riting.” They are
training staff w riter s, interview ing veterans, and testing on veterans
the r evised ver sions of selected letter s.
In a test of one traditional-versus-revised letter, the percentage of
veterans w ho failed to understand the letter dropped from 56% to
11% for the revised version. T he average reading tim e dropped from
8 m in utes to 6 min utes. And the percen tage of veter ans w ho judged
the letter as som ew hat difficult dropped from 44% to 0%.
8. U.S.: Naval Officers — Business Memos37
R esearcher s studied th e difference betw een w hat th ey called
“high-im pact” style and “tradi tional bu reau crat ic” sty le. The readers
w ere 262 naval officers (about half of them from the Pentagon), but
the docu m en t w as a gener al bu siness mem o, not one specific to the
N avy . A s a context, the readers w ere given a hy pothetical case in
w hi ch a h om e-office adviser vi sited a local-office man ager. T he
hom e-office advi ser then follow ed up w ith a m emo th at suggested a
w ay to im prove productiv ity and m orale.
In the testing, readers of the high-im pact mem o had a hi gher
percentage of corr ect answ ers on each of seven questions. Th ey read
the m em o in 17% less tim e (23% less for the D.C . group). A nd only
half as m any felt the need to reread it.
36
Melodee Mercer, H andouts from the National Performance R eview ' s “Plain English
Forums” (May 14 & 22, 1997; Sept. 9, 1997) (on file with author).
37
James Suchan & R obert C olucci, An An al y sis o f Com m unication Efficiency Betw een
High-Im pact an d Bu r ea uc r at ic W ri tt en C o m m u n ic at io n , 2 M ANAGEMENT C O M M . Q.
454 (1989).28 The Scr ibes Jou rn al of Leg al Writin g 1996–1997
H ere' s how the research ers described the high-im pact sty le: 38
• T he bottom line (the purpose of the r eport) stated in th e first
paragraph.
• A contract sentence (stating w hat m ajor points the report will
cover ) im m ediat ely follow in g the bottom lin e.
• Short paragr aphs, boldface headi ngs that m irr or the lan guage
in th e contract sen ten ce, and lists.
• Simple sentences w ithout a lot of inform ation before or
betw een th e m ain parts (subject–verb–object).
• Subjects an d ver bs, especially , as close to each oth er as possible.
• Ver bs in th e activ e voice.
• C oncrete, easy -to-un derstand language.
• First- an d second-per son person al pr onouns.
9. U.S.: Army Officers — Business Memos39
A nother study of “hi gh-im pact” sty le. T hi s tim e, the research ers
w anted to see w hether that sty le is m ore effective in gettin g readers
to comply w ith w ritten i nstru ction s. Th ey tested 129 A rmy officers,
w ho w ere given one of two versions of a m em o suggesting th at they
perform a specific task. R eaders of the high-im pact m em o w ere tw ice
as lik ely to comply w ith the m emo on the sam e day they got it.
38
Id. at 462, 464-65.
39
Hiluard G. Rogers & F. Will iam Brown, The Im pact o f W rit in g St y le o n C o m p l ia n c e
w it h In st ru c tio n s, 23 J. T EC H N IC A L W RITING & C O M M . 53 (1993).1996–1997 W r i t in g f o r D o ll ar s 29
10. U.S.: General Public — Tax Forms40
In a project for the Internal Revenue Service, the Document
Design C enter revised a tax form for the sale of a house. In tests of
the old form , on ly 10% of taxpay ers perfor m ed w ell — th at is,
completed it w ithou t significant err ors. Th e C enter coul d not chan ge
everything th at needed ch an ging becau se som e of the term s appeared
in other, r elated form s. Still, in tests of the revised form , the
percentage of taxpay ers w ho performed w ell increased to 55%. In
addition, th ey “appeared less confused an d less fr ustr ated th an th ose
w ho tested the [old form ]. Even w ithou t m icro-level data,
par ticipan ts' body language suggested that w hile there were more
lin e items on th e revised form , they found it easier to fill ou t.”41
11. U.S.: General Public — Owner's Manual42
In 1988, Ford M otor C om pany asked th e Docu m ent D esign
C enter to produce a plain-language version of the ow ner' s m anu al
for the For d T aur us. W hen the new m anu al w as tested on bu y er s,
85% of them said they preferred the plain-language version.
12. U.S.: General Public — Medical Pamphlet43
In this study , researchers used tw o versions of a medical pam phlet
on polio vaccin e. Th e origin al pam phlet w as from the C enter for
40
Anita D. Wright, The Value of Usability Testing in Docum ent De si g n, C LARITY No. 30,
Mar. 1994, at 24.
41
Id. at 30.
42
Pl ai n En g l ish Pa y s, SIMPLY STATED No. 80 (Document Design C enter), Mar. 1989, at
1.
43
Terry C. Davis et al., Par en t Co m pr ehe n sio n o f Po lio Vac c in e Info rm ation Pam phlets, 97
PEDIA TRIC S 804 (1996).30 The Scr ibes Jou rn al of Leg al Writin g 1996–1997
Disease C ontrol. T he r evised pam phlet, w hi ch w as developed by the
Louisiana State U ni ver sity M edical C enter in Shreveport, simpli fied
the original but still k ept the essential in form ation th at the doctors
beli eved paren ts shou ld k now . T he pam phl ets were tested on 522
paren ts w ho v isited pediatr ic clin ics during Ju ly 1993.
The parents' comprehension and readin g tim e im proved
substantially w ith the revised version; in fact, readin g tim e dro pped
from alm ost 14 minutes to about 4½ minutes. Even more revealing
is w hich pam phlet the parents w ould be more likely to read. O nly
49% said the chan ces were very good to excel len t th at th ey w ould
read the original pam phlet. But 81% said the chances w ere very good
to excellent that th ey w ould r ead the revised pamphlet. Th ere y ou
have the ultimate value of plain language in public docum ents: it
m otivates readers to read.
13. U.S.: General Public — Investment Documents44
H ere is mor e evidence that pl ain-lan guage docu m en ts get read. In
1995, the Securities and Exchange C om m ission, the Investm ent
C om pany Institute, and eight m utual -fund groups w ork ed togeth er
to develop a “profile prospectus” for people to read before investing
in a m utual fund. Each pr ofile prospectus contai ns concise
inform ation on 11 investm en t po ints — an d tak es just a few pages, as
oppo sed to the 12 or more pages in a traditional prospectus. The
Investment C o m pany Institute then tested the tw o k inds of
prospectuses on 1,000 persons w ho had recently bought m utu al
funds.
44
1 INVESTMENT C OMPANY INSTITUTE, T H E PROFIL E PR OSPEC T U S: A N A SSESSMEN T
BY M UT UA L F U ND SH A R EH O L DER S 3-7 (1996); see al so New Disclosure Option for
Open-End Management Investment Companies, 63 Fed. Reg. 13,968, 13,969 n.11 (1998)
(authorizing mutual funds to offer the profile prospectus and noting that 88% of the
256 comment letters to the SEC on the proposal were in support).1996–1997 W r i t in g f o r D o ll ar s 31
In every one of a series of com pari sons — incl udi ng h ow easy it
w as to find and un derstand several im portant items — the buy ers
rated the profile prospectus higher than the traditional pr ospectus.
W hat' s m or e, m ost of the buy ers had not even r ead the traditi onal
prospectus before investing; but 61% of that group said they w ould
be ver y lik ely to read th e profile prospectus.
14. Australia: Lawyers — Legislation45
A s another one of its demonstration projects, the Law R eform
C om m ission of Victoria redrafted Australia's complex Takeovers
C ode. They cut it by alm ost half. They checked the new version for
accur acy w ith substanti ve experts. A nd w hen the C om m ission tested
the tw o ver sions on law y ers and law students, those readers
comprehen ded the plain-language version in half to a third of the
average time needed to comprehend the original version.
A Part ing Look at Pr ecision
O f all the barriers to change — and to realizing the benefits of
plain language — none is greater than the m y th that clarity has to be
sacrificed for precision, especially w ith complex subjects. Don't
believe it. The murk iness that plagues so m uch official and legal
prose is usually gener ated by the w riter , not by the su bstance. It
com es m ore from bad sty le than from th e inherent difficulty of the
subject. A nd th at' s w hen th e need for “precision” becomes a lame
excuse for lam e w ritin g.
T he exam ples are endless:
45
PL A IN EN GL ISH A N D T H E LA W , supra note 1, at 69-70.32 The Scr ibes Jou rn al of Leg al Writin g 1996–1997
• “This agreement t o arbitr ate is not a prerequisite to health care or
treatment and may be revoked with in 60 days after execution by
notification in w riting.”46
In oth er w ords, “You don ' t have to sign this to get treatm ent here. And
if y ou do sign it, y ou can cancel w ith in 60 day s after y ou sign by w riting
to _________________________.”
• “A person commit s th e cr im e of sexual misconduct in the first degree if
he has deviate sexual in tercourse w ith another person of the same sex or
he purposely subjects another person to sexual contact or engages in
condu ct w hich w ould constitute sexual contact except that the touching
occurs through the clothing with out that person' s consent.”47
W hat does “without that person's consent” modify ? It has to modify the
second it em —“he purposely subjects another person to sexu al contact” —
or sex is illegal in this state. But does th e phrase also modify the first item,
concerning deviate sexual intercourse, or does the second “he” signal a
br eak ? O n e r em edy: use a vertical list, and be careful where you put
“without that per son' s consent.” You m ay need it tw ice.
• “The undersigned borrow er(s) for and in consideration of Th e Mortgage
C om pany , this date funding the closing of the above referen ced property,
agr ees, if requested by Lender or C losing Agent for Lender, to fully
cooperate and adjust for clerical errors, any or all loan closing
documentation if deemed necessary or desirable in the reasonable
discretion of Lender to enable Lender to sell, convey , seek guarantee, or
mark et said loan to any entity , including but not limited to an investor,
Federal Nation al M ort-gage Association, Federal H ome Loan M ortgage
C orporati on or the Feder al H ousing Author ity . T he undersign ed
borrow er(s) do hereby so agree and covenant in order to assure that the
loan documentation executed this date will conform and be acceptable in
the market place in the instance of transfer, sale or con vey ance by Lender
of its interest in and to said loan documentation.”48
46
From a medical arbitration form used for y ears in Michigan.
47
M O . A N N . ST A T . § 566.090(1) (W est Supp. 1998).
48
From my mortgage papers.1996–1997 W r i t in g f o r D o ll ar s 33
This mass of verbiage can be r eplaced — with greater precision, in fact —
by the follow ing sentence: “If the len der asks us to, we w ill cooperate in
fixing clerical errors in the closing documents so that the loan can be
mark eted and transferred to someone else.”
C ertainly , everyone recognizes that subjects vary in their
com plexity , that some ideas can be stated only so clearly , and that
practically no w riting will be understandable to all readers. Granted,
too, th at w riter s ar e som etim es faced w ith har d cho ices betw een
clarity and degree of detail and that a sense of caution, especially in
private legal documents, may push the wr iter tow ard more detail.
Gran ted, in short, th at a few m ore w ords are better than a law suit or
a legal claim.
But law y ers hav e over don e it. W e add n ot ju st a few ex tra w ords,
but extra words by the bucketful. W e are given to excessive detail,
thinking that Judge Fiendish m ight som ehow decide that, as in the
last exam ple above, “transfer” does not in clude “convey ” or th at
“tran sfer to som eone else” does not in clude a tran sfer to th e Federal
H ousing A uthor ity . A lthough the line between caution and excessive
caution may be hard to draw , we might at least start to recognize
that our professional habit is to cross over that li ne — and then som e.
Let m e offer one last shi ni ng ex am ple, w hi ch I discovered on a
plane flight not long ago. It' s an exit-seat card, tak en alm ost w ord for
w ord from the C o d e o f Fe de ral R eg u latio n s. 49
49
See 14 C .F.R. § 121.585(b)-(d).You can also read
