THE LEGAL WORD by Susie Salmon

Don’t Write Like a Loser! cases. In both studies, Long was able to conclude that increased intensifier use was My name is Susie, and I’m an adjective addict. associated with losing arguments, whether in Yep. It’s true. Eliminating unhelpful adjectives—and, I must confess, appellate briefs or dissenting opinions. adverbs—tops my revision checklist. Why? I want to be accurate, brief, As the maxim holds, correlation is not clear, and precise, of course. But I also don’t want to sound like a loser. causation. It may be that, as Long posits, “The degree of intensifier use by the writer Adjectives and Adverbs Add Bulk of a legal brief is a function of the writer’s Lawyers often write under word limits and perception of the strength of his or her own Effective legal writers page limits. But even when no such limits argument, relative to the opposing side’s apply, good legal writers strive to be brief. argument.”6 In other words, perhaps writers know that adjective Concise prose communicates more clearly. overuse intensifiers when they feel defensive. What’s more, we don’t want to waste our At any rate, the fact that intensifier use and adverb abuse reader’s time with surplus verbiage. correlates with losing arguments should give Sometimes, adjectives and adverbs add the thoughtful legal writer pause. If that is clutters their bulk without enhancing clarity. Be wary true, legal readers may well subconsciously— of redundant adjectives or adverbs (think or consciously—associate intensifier over- prose and undermines whispered quietly or happy smile). And a use with a losing argument. And no legal well-chosen verb or noun can do the job of writer wants to sound defensive. Moreover, a verb/adverb or noun/adjective combina- decades of social-science research demon- their credibility. tion more evocatively and efficiently (think strate that intensifier use is a form of “pow- smirk instead of snide smile or sauntered erless language”—language associated with instead of walked slowly). individuals with less agency, status, and cred- ibility. Add these considerations to the reality Adjectives and Adverbs May Lack Precision that intensifiers often add little meaning, and Some adjectives can mean different things to different people. To me, legal writers are wise to think twice before my alleged Husky1 mix, Jakie the Mop, who weighs in at just over 20 dropping a so or very (or, heaven forbid, a pounds, is a “small” dog. To my friend, who lives with four Chihuahuas, clearly or obviously) into their next brief. Jakie qualifies as a medium-sized dog, at least.2 And my “fast” running Of course, adjectives and adverbs are not pace would be a stroll for many of my runner friends. inherently bad. Effective legal writers deploy Instead of relying on an adjective or adverb, consider a more precise them selectively to enhance the clarity, viv- modifier. Jakie is a 20-pound dog. I average a 10-minute mile on training idness, and precision of their fact statements runs. I mention dogs or running in two-thirds of my columns.3 and legal arguments. Indeed, writing experts generously season their own writing with Don’t Sound Like a Loser! carefully chosen modifiers. But effective legal Legal-writing experts warn against intensifiers likeobviously , writers also know that adjective and adverb wholly, and clearly. Far from reassuring the reader that a propo- abuse clutters their prose and undermines sition is, indeed, clear or obvious, these intensifiers may instead their credibility. Communication that substi- cause readers to question assertions they otherwise may have tutes stacks of generic adjectives and adverbs accepted. In criticizing pervasive use of the intensifier “clearly” for substance reeks of spin and puffery7— in SCOTUS briefs, Chief Justice Roberts snarked that, if the case and that’s not a fragrance you want wafting were that clear, it would not be before the Court. And in a survey from your next appellate brief. of judges, every responding judge found the use of intensifiers in legal briefs mildly to strongly irritating. In fact, good writers endnotes in any genre shun intensifiers; Mark Twain famously counseled 1. #allegedhusky #Jakiethesledmop #doggie writers to “substitute ‘damn’ every time you’re inclined to write DNAtestsmightnotbesuperaccurate ‘very’; your editor will delete it and the writing will be just as it 2. When he steps on my ear at 4:30 a.m., he’s a should be.”4 behemoth. In light of this apparent consensus, Professor Lance Long 3. Hey, I haven’t mentioned Hamilton yet! formulated a theory: Appellate briefs that used more intensifiers 4. Is this true, Tim? [Editor’s Note: Damn cor- would be less persuasive—and less likely to succeed—than those rect.] Susie Salmon is the Director of 5. Legal Writing and Clinical Professor of that used fewer intensifiers.5 With statistics professor William See Lance N. Long & William F. Christensen, Law at the University of Arizona, James Clearly, Using Intensifiers Is Very Bad—or Is Christensen, he conducted two studies examining the correlation E. Rogers College of Law. Before joining It? 1. 45 Idaho L. Rev. 171, 180 (2008). Arizona Law, she spent nine years as between intensifier use and success, one using civil cases in Utah 6. a commercial litigator at large firms in Id. at 186. Tucson and Los Angeles. and one using 400 randomly selected state and federal appellate 7. Hugely. Tremendously.

10 ARIZONA ATTORNEY JANUARY 2018 www.azbar.org/AZAttorney