{"id":4889,"date":"2023-08-22T13:08:00","date_gmt":"2023-08-22T11:08:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/djp-a9vm.1wp.site\/?p=4889"},"modified":"2026-10-19T19:05:31","modified_gmt":"2026-10-19T17:05:31","slug":"treat-the-judge-as-you-would-wish-to-be-treated-formal-style-in-procedural-documents","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/djp.pl\/en\/treat-the-judge-as-you-would-wish-to-be-treated-formal-style-in-procedural-documents\/","title":{"rendered":"Treat the judge as you would wish to be treated: formal style in procedural documents"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><strong>At the outset, it must be emphasised that where legal practitioners effect publication of articles or other textual material on the social networking service LinkedIn (hereinafter \u201cLinkedIn\u201d), addressed to other legal practitioners, they do not, as a general rule, employ therein the formalised, bureaucratic style of which the present sentence might be considered a representative example. In light of the foregoing observation, a material issue arises in the form of a question as to the possible cause of the prevalence of such practice.<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Or, in human language: why? Why, when writing for other lawyers outside court, do we write normally rather than like that? The answer is simple: otherwise nobody would read it. Why not? Because that style is tiring and boring. The writer\u2019s thought is difficult to find and follow through winding, multiply subordinate sentences full of pompous vocabulary\u2014the less used in normal conversation the better\u2014and stock phrases. Clearly nobody, or almost nobody, voluntarily reads this. We all know that, at least intuitively. That is why we write differently on LinkedIn. And even if we do not write ourselves, we choose to read people who do.<\/p>\n<h2>Why are court pleadings so formal?<\/h2>\n<p>Why, then, do we still write to judges in this hyperformal, really inflated and unnecessarily complicated way? Of course judges do not read pleadings for entertainment; it is their professional duty. But surely we agree that it would be better if they were not excessively tired and bored while reading our key arguments\u2014or any arguments. Judges are essentially human beings and lawyers just like us. We can safely assume such writing bores and tires them as much as us: recall your feelings when reading your opponent\u2019s latest pleading. Why would it be different?<\/p>\n<p>Someone might point out that judges write their reasons in the same style, so they must like it. But what we can write and what we enjoy reading are different things. Judges are as accustomed to drafting reasons that way as we are pleadings. After years spent reading and writing such texts for hours each working day, the style becomes ingrained. In a particular context\u2014drafting reasons or a pleading\u2014it becomes a reflex, easier than writing normally. Anyone who has struggled, and it is a struggle, to write more simply and directly can attest to this. None of that means a judge will fail to appreciate a more direct pleading, let alone be offended.<\/p>\n<p>Besides inertia, this seems the main reason the unbearably formal style persists. We fear that insufficient formality will offend the judge or at least suggest a lack of sophistication and professionalism. But these fears in our heads are not borne out in reality. Have any of you ever seen a judgment criticise a party or lawyer for language that was too informal? I have not. Criticism of overly long and convoluted argument, on the other hand\u2014certainly.<\/p>\n<h2>Simpler language makes the court\u2019s work easier<\/h2>\n<p>Judges are people and, like everyone, want to get their work done without unnecessary effort. Part of their job is understanding what a case is about and what the parties want. Only then can they sensibly try to decide it. Our pleadings can help\u2014or fail to help. If we begin writing to help, we may achieve not only better understanding, the foundation of persuasion, but also goodwill towards us, which is almost the entire building. This will happen even when\u2014or precisely when\u2014we omit \u201cit must be noted\u201d, \u201cthe matter in question\u201d and \u201cherein\u201d. It is a win-win: a little empathy for the judicial reader makes their work easier and less tiring while giving us a competitive advantage over opponents.<\/p>\n<p>Having regard to the foregoing, I request as stated in the first part of this article\u2019s title.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>At the outset, it must be emphasised that where legal practitioners effect publication of articles or other textual material on the social networking service LinkedIn (hereinafter \u201cLinkedIn\u201d), addressed to other legal practitioners, they do not, as a general rule, employ therein the formalised, bureaucratic style of which the present sentence\u2026<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":8,"featured_media":1535,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_seopress_titles_title":"","_seopress_titles_desc":"","_seopress_robots_index":"","_seopress_robots_follow":"","_seopress_robots_imageindex":"","_seopress_robots_snippet":"","_seopress_robots_primary_cat":"294","_seopress_robots_breadcrumbs":"","_seopress_robots_freeze_modified_date":"","_seopress_robots_custom_modified_date":"","_seopress_robots_canonical":"","_seopress_social_fb_title":"","_seopress_social_fb_desc":"","_seopress_social_fb_img":"","_seopress_social_fb_img_attachment_id":0,"_seopress_social_fb_img_width":0,"_seopress_social_fb_img_height":0,"_seopress_social_twitter_title":"","_seopress_social_twitter_desc":"","_seopress_social_twitter_img":"","_seopress_social_twitter_img_attachment_id":0,"_seopress_social_twitter_img_width":0,"_seopress_social_twitter_img_height":0,"_seopress_redirections_value":"","_seopress_redirections_enabled":"","_seopress_redirections_enabled_regex":"","_seopress_redirections_logged_status":"","_seopress_redirections_param":"","_seopress_redirections_type":0,"_seopress_analysis_target_kw":"","_seopress_news_disabled":"","_seopress_video_disabled":"","_seopress_video":[],"_seopress_pro_schemas_manual":[],"_seopress_pro_rich_snippets_disable_all":"","_seopress_pro_rich_snippets_disable":[],"_seopress_pro_schemas":[],"iawp_total_views":1,"_djp_featured_image_mode":"full","footnotes":""},"categories":[{"term_id":294,"name":"Articles","slug":"articles-en","term_group":0,"term_taxonomy_id":294,"taxonomy":"category","description":"","parent":0,"count":100,"filter":"raw","cat_ID":294,"category_count":100,"category_description":"","cat_name":"Articles","category_nicename":"articles-en","category_parent":0},{"term_id":292,"name":"Dispute Resolution","slug":"dispute-resolution-en","term_group":0,"term_taxonomy_id":292,"taxonomy":"category","description":"","parent":0,"count":51,"filter":"raw","cat_ID":292,"category_count":51,"category_description":"","cat_name":"Dispute Resolution","category_nicename":"dispute-resolution-en","category_parent":0},{"term_id":291,"name":"General","slug":"general-en","term_group":0,"term_taxonomy_id":291,"taxonomy":"category","description":"","parent":0,"count":153,"filter":"raw","cat_ID":291,"category_count":153,"category_description":"","cat_name":"General","category_nicename":"general-en","category_parent":0}],"tags":[322],"djp_center":[],"coauthors":[238],"class_list":["post-4889","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-articles-en","category-dispute-resolution-en","category-general-en","tag-featured-en"],"acf":{"djp_promote_now":false,"djp_promotion_days":7},"images":{"thumbnail":"https:\/\/djp.pl\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/pexels-pixabay-51159-scaled-1-150x150.jpg","medium":"https:\/\/djp.pl\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/pexels-pixabay-51159-scaled-1-300x199.jpg","medium_large":"https:\/\/djp.pl\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/pexels-pixabay-51159-scaled-1-768x509.jpg","large":"https:\/\/djp.pl\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/pexels-pixabay-51159-scaled-1-1024x678.jpg","full":"https:\/\/djp.pl\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/pexels-pixabay-51159-scaled-1-djp-web.webp"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/djp.pl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4889","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/djp.pl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/djp.pl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/djp.pl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/8"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/djp.pl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4889"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/djp.pl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4889\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":5537,"href":"https:\/\/djp.pl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4889\/revisions\/5537"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/djp.pl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/1535"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/djp.pl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4889"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/djp.pl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4889"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/djp.pl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4889"},{"taxonomy":"djp_center","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/djp.pl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/djp_center?post=4889"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/djp.pl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=4889"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}