Does anyone have any objections?

Relatively few lawyers start sentences in pleadings with “but”. Some even say we should not. Why? Because “that is not how one writes”. I do it quite often, however, so I thought it worth asking what really lies behind these objections and how much merit they have.

I think there are two beliefs. First, that opening a sentence this way is incorrect. Second, that it is colloquial and therefore unsuitable for the very serious, formal document a pleading is and should be—is it not?

Can a sentence begin with “but”?

Let us start with the linguistic question. Is beginning a sentence with Polish ale (“but”), or another conjunction such as a, i or bo, an error? No. There is no linguistic or spelling rule prohibiting it. Rightly so. If the writer deliberately seeks an effect—I will explain its use in pleadings below—why should they not start with a conjunction? It is common practice among Polish speakers. If that does not convince you, here is the authority of the PWN language advice service:

28 December 2009

[Question:] Can a sentence begin with “but”? Can it also begin with “and” (for example, “And besides, do not be angry with me”)?

[Answer:] You can begin with “but”, “and”, “so” and many other words our correspondents ask about. At the beginning of a sentence, these words refer to earlier text, so using them meaningfully presupposes that such text exists. If you tell a newsagent, “Good morning. But I would like matches”, the function of “but” is unclear. If the newsagent has handed you a newspaper instead of matches, however, “But I would like matches” is entirely appropriate.

Mirosław Bańko, PWN

Does “but” belong in a pleading?

With that settled, let us turn to the second issue. Is initial “but” too informal for a pleading? I will leave aside the broader debate about whether lawyers must—and should—write in a hyperformal bureaucratic style. My answer is no, no and no again, as discussed in earlier posts. Here, let us focus on the formality of initial “but” itself. How can it be measured, and how can we convince someone it is not too low when style largely depends on personal preference?

Through examples, I think. They show that recognised authors, including lawyers, have long used initial “but” in serious publications:

• Maurycy Allerhand, Podstęp w procesie (Deceit in Proceedings), Lwów 1907, for example p. 170: “If the third party did not know of the pending dispute and consequently did not join the proceedings, a judgment effective against that party may result from collusion between the litigants. But even if the third party joins, they cannot always avert adverse consequences.”
• Eugeniusz Waśkowski, Podręcznik procesu cywilnego: ustrój sądów cywilny, postępowanie sporne (Civil Procedure Textbook), Wilno 1932, for example p. 162: “Naturally, a party’s inactivity may cause harm or even loss of the case. But the fact that taking a procedural step would benefit a litigant by no means establishes a legal duty to take it.”
• Roman Longchamps de Berier, Zobowiązania (Obligations), Lwów 1939, for example p. 84, spelling modernised: “A mistake is subjectively material if causally connected with making the declaration, meaning that without it the party would not have made the declaration. But a ‘subjectively material’ mistake is not sufficient; it must also be objectively material, meaning a mistake such that neither the declaring party nor any other reasonable person would have made that declaration without being mistaken.”

Are there more contemporary examples? Yes. The following used it repeatedly:

• Zygmunt Bauman, for example Ponowoczesne wzory osobowe, “Studia Socjologiczne” 2011, no. 1 (200), pp. 436, 438, 445, 446, 447, 448, 449, 450, 451, 453, 456;
• Jerzy Bralczyk, for example Poza prawdą i fałszem, “Teksty: teoria literatury, krytyka, interpretacja” 1981, no. 6 (60), pp. 123, 124, 125;
• Jan Miodek, for example Polszczyzna lat 1918–2018, “Studia Pigoniana”, MMXIX, no. 2, pp. 43, 44, 46.

Among contemporary lawyers, Andrzej Szlęzak is an example: see his article from this year, Krytycznie o polemice: kwalifikacja prawna klauzuli drag along, PPH 2022, no. 7, p. 42.

If classics of legal scholarship, leading Polish linguists, famous sociologists such as Bauman and partners in major law firms such as Szlęzak could write this way without finding it too informal, we ordinary mortals probably can too.

Why is it worth starting sentences with “but”?

Being allowed to do something does not mean it is worthwhile. Why should a pleading’s author begin some sentences with “but”? At least three reasons:

1. Initial “but” makes prose more dynamic. Livelier writing is less boring, easier to read and understand.
2. It allows one long sentence to be split into two. Short sentences tire readers less, making the text easier to read and understand.
3. It shortens the text, replacing several words or at least longer words such as “nevertheless” or “however”. Shorter text is easier to read and understand.

Initial “but” is therefore one device that makes a pleading’s language stronger: livelier, more concise and direct. That helps win cases because the court can absorb it more easily.

As always, an example helps. I doubt anyone will question which version would better catch the court’s attention:

1. The appellant alleges a manifestly incorrect application of Article X. It must, however, be emphasised that the court applied it consistently with settled Supreme Court case law. The ground is therefore unfounded.
2. The appellant alleges a manifestly incorrect application of Article X. But the court applied it consistently with settled Supreme Court case law. The ground is therefore unfounded.