Legal writing often goes wrong at the extremes: either it stiffens into archaic formality, or it relaxes into casual chatter. Both weaken the writer’s authority. Unduly formal prose—crowded with herein, aforementioned, and tortuous sentences—doesn’t signal precision. It signals distance and strain. But writing that sounds offhand (basically the court punted, that argument won’t hunt) swings too far the other way, making serious analysis seem casual or imprecise. The aim is a middle path: writing that resembles good, clear conversation, but slightly elevated for a professional setting.
Think of it as conversational English with discipline. Use familiar words and straightforward syntax, but keep the tone measured and exact. Say because, not inasmuch as; say before, not prior to; say after, not subsequent to. Contractions are fine when they sound natural—good judicial opinions use them freely—but the sentence should still carry weight. A helpful test is to imagine explaining the point to a thoughtful colleague or judge: you’d be clear and direct, not flippant. So instead of There’s no way the statute covers this, write The statute does not cover this. And instead of That reading just doesn’t work, write, That reading fails because . . . . The goal is ease without looseness.
Achieving the right balance takes editing. Trim bloated phrasing, but also watch for anything that sounds too casual—idioms or clichés that feel tossed off rather than considered. Reading aloud often helps: hyperformal sentences drag, while informal ones jar. The best legal prose sounds like a careful lawyer speaking plainly, with a bit of polish—serious but not stuffy, clear without being slapdash.