Writing That Works
Three Writing Rules That Are “More What You’d Call ‘Guidelines’”
In Disney’s first “Pirates of the Caribbean” movie, there is a classic moment when the heroine, Elizabeth Swann, invokes the Pirate’s Code to save herself from the villainous Barbossa. Barbossa replies that because Ms. Swann is not a pirate, the Code does not apply to her. He then adds, with a sardonic grin, that “the Code is more what you’d call ‘guidelines’ than actual rules.”
The same can be said about some of the rules of proper writing that have been taught and observed slavishly for centuries. I realize that I am entering dangerous waters here; many lawyers are sticklers for proper grammar, and some of you may disagree with what I’m about to say. Nonetheless, after consulting a wealth of resources, I feel safe in asserting that the three “rules” below have become “more what you’d call ‘guidelines’” for good legal writing.
1. Never begin a sentence with a conjunction.
Put simply, a conjunction is a word that functions as a connector between two sentences, clauses, phrases, or words. The mnemonic FANBOYS is often used to remember the most common conjunctions: for, and, nor, but, or, yet, and so.
The “never begin a sentence with a conjunction” rule perhaps originated from the common-sense notion that because conjunctions connect two smaller structures into a single larger structure, they should appear only between those two smaller structures. But experts in modern writing style agree that it is acceptable to begin a sentence with a conjunction. The Chicago Manual of Style calls the “never start a sentence with a conjunction” rule a “monstrous doctrine” that has “no historical or grammatical foundation.”[1] Legal writing expert Joseph Williams calls the rule “folklore.”[2] Professor Joseph Kimble, a leading proponent of the Plain English movement, writes, “Listen to how you talk. ‘But’ is far more common and more deft than ‘however’ to show contrast at the beginning of a sentence.”[3]
If you choose to start a sentence with a conjunction, don’t put a comma after it. “The purpose of these punchy conjunctions is to force the reader into the rest of the sentence. A comma does nothing but stop the flow.”[4] And be sure that what follows the conjunction is a complete sentence; the “never use a sentence fragment in formal writing” rule is still very much a rule, not a guideline!
If you take the time to count, you will see that in this column, I chose to begin a sentence with a conjunction five times! The key is that I chose to break the rule in those few sentences, to make my writing more powerful. If you break the “never start a sentence with a conjunction” rule too many times in the same piece of writing, your writing will seem choppy and unnatural to the reader.
2. Never end a sentence with a preposition.
Sir Winston Churchill is widely credited as responding to an overzealous editor by saying that the rule against ending sentences with prepositions “is the type of arrant pedantry up with which I shall not put.” Churchill’s statement is a perfect illustration of the convoluted writing that sometimes results from our efforts to avoid sentence-ending prepositions, a rule that likely was pounded into our heads as elementary school students.
I recently saw the following sentence in a student memo: “It was clear from the look on the defendant’s face that he had no idea what the prosecutor was talking about.” To avoid ending this sentence with a preposition, the student could have written, “It was clear from the look on the defendant’s face that he had no idea about what the prosecutor was talking.” But this version of the sentence would have been unnatural, and I probably would have stumbled over it.
Keep in mind that one of your chief goals as a legal writer is to make your writing as precise, clear, and concise as possible. You want your writing to be highly readable; you want your words to flow smoothly across your reader’s mind. Thus, if putting a preposition at the end of a sentence results in smoother, more natural writing, then you should break the rule prohibiting it. It bears repeating, though, that you should not break the rule too often within the same piece of writing
3. Never split an infinitive.
If you’re asking, “What’s an infinitive?” you’re not alone. Studies suggest that the teaching of formal grammar in elementary and secondary schools has declined in recent decades.[5] I find that many law students are unfamiliar with the term “infinitive” and thus are probably splitting their infinitives quite innocently!
Put simply, an infinitive is the “to” form of a verb: for example, “to argue” and “to agree” are infinitives. In Latin, the infinitive form of a verb is expressed in a single word, which likely explains the origin of the “never split an infinitive” rule. But in English, that rule makes less sense. To the modern reader, either of the following sentences is acceptable:
- Remember to always proofread your writing.
- Remember always to proofread your writing.
In fact, when these two sentences are spoken out loud, the first one, which contains the split infinitive, actually sounds more natural.
Sometimes splitting an infinitive results in more powerful writing. Consider this example: “The defendant continued to willfully dump toxic waste into the river for twenty years.” The placement of the word “willfully” between the infinitive “to dump” gives it an emphasis that would be lacking if it were placed elsewhere. (And notice the awkward results of placing the word “willfully” before the word “to” or after the word “dump.”)
A final note: Deborah Bouchoux, author of the Aspen Handbook for Legal Writers, aptly points out that “legal readers are notorious perfectionists,” many of whom would find a split infinitive or a dangling preposition jarring.[6] If you know your reader is a “grammar curmudgeon,” you should err on the side of caution and treat these three “guidelines” as hard and fast rules. But I think that most legal readers value clarity highly enough that they, too, will be willing to see these rules as “more like guidelines” that can, and occasionally should, be broken.
Laura Graham serves as Professor of Legal Writing and Director of Legal Analysis, Writing, and Research at Wake Forest University School of Law, where she has been teaching since 1999. She was the first recipient of the law school’s Graham Award for Excellence in Teaching Legal Research and Writing, which is named in her honor, and currently serves as immediate past president of the Association of Legal Writing Directors. Graham is a graduate of Wake Forest University and Wake Forest University School of Law.
[1] Univ. of Chicago, The Chicago Manual of Style § 5.206 (16th ed. 2010).
[2] Joseph M. Williams, Style: Ten Lessons in Clarity and Grace (8th ed. Longman 2005).
[3] Joseph Kimble, A Modest Wish List for Legal Writing (2003).
[4] Legal Writing Pro, Four Usage Fights, available at http://www.legalwritingpro.com/articles/C13-four-usage-fights.php.
[5] For an interesting essay on why this might be so, see Veda Charrow, Why the Bad Grammar?, available at https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/dec/15/20041215-085728-5559r/.
[6] Deborah E. Bouchoux, Aspen Handbook for Legal Writers: A Practical Reference 15 (2nd ed. 2009).