Why do so many federal statutes use the spelling subpena instead of subpoena?      Funny thing. It seems to be the result of an old choice made for the Government Printing Office Style Manual. The earliest copy we have at LawProse, the 1926 edition, has no reference to the spelling of this word. But the …

LawProse Lesson #201: “Subpoena” vs. “subpena” Read More »

Which is standard: toward or towards?       In American English, toward has been the usual form in print sources since about 1900. Many usage authorities since then have expressed a strong preference for toward, without the final –s. The s-less form of the word is consistent with analogous (though less common) directional words …

LawProse Lesson #200: Which is standard: “toward” or “towards”? Read More »

Persuasive openers.      Almost all poorly written motions and briefs have one thing in common: they get off to a bad start. They have no clear, boldly expressed point. They’re mushy. How to fix that problem? Say on page one—in plain English that anyone can understand—what problem the court is to resolve, how, and …

LawProse Lesson #199: Persuasive openers. Read More »

Commas with coordinating conjunctions. Many writers struggle with whether to use a comma in a compound sentence whose clauses are joined by a coordinating conjunction (and, but, or, nor, for, yet, so). Although some examples may be tricky or complicated, most of the time some basic rules apply. Here’s a refresher on the fundamentals: 1. …

LawProse Lesson #198: Commas with coordinating conjunctions. Read More »

Using ellipsis dots with quotations. Lawyers frequently need ellipsis dots because of the abundant quotations in legal writing—quotations that often need trimming. Properly used, ellipses are perfectly respectable and often necessary to avoid both the reproduction of extraneous words (a time-waster) and any suspicion that the writer has tampered with the quotation’s meaning (a credibility-waster). …

LawProse Lesson #197: Using ellipsis dots with quotations. Read More »

Notwithstanding. “Notwithstanding is much too ponderous for everyday life. Say in spite of or despite.” — Rudolf Flesch, The ABC of Style 207 (1964). After 50 years, Flesch’s sentiment still holds true for most writing—even most legal writing. There are two main problems with notwithstanding. First, it’s a cumbersome connector that bogs down your prose. In legal writing, …

LawProse Lesson #196: “Notwithstanding” Read More »

Due to what? Traditionally, due functions as either a noun meaning “something owed” {The players finally gave their coach his due.} or an adjective meaning “adequate” or “appropriate” {due process} {with all due respect}. The phrase due to most traditionally functions as an adjective meaning “attributable to.” Linguistic conservatives think that the phrase is best used (1) after a …

LawProse Lesson #195: “Due to” what? Read More »