Legal News

Appearing Before Judge Robert Kressel? Read On . . .

By Ashby Jones

Rule 17 in Strunk and White’s famous tome on writing, “The Elements of Style” reads, simply:

Omit needless words.

It’s a line that everyone who writes for a living — or who writes a lot during the course of his or her day — should certainly be mindful of (ourselves included, of course).

But you’ll really want to brush up on the rule prior to filing anything with Minnesota federal bankruptcy judge Robert Kressel (pictured). The good judge has had it with superfluous words. In fact, he’s had it with a lot of lawyerly writing habits, a handful of which he typed up and put into a sort of cheat-sheet of no-nos for lawyers appearing in front of him. Click here for the document, courtesy of the Lawyerist. (Hat tip: Legal Blog Watch).

The tone of Kressel’s missive might strike some as imperious, but there seems to be a noble goal behind all of the rules: simplicity and clarity. The judge doesn’t like the use of “and/or,” the word “undersigned,” or wrongly capitalized words (”Lawyers apparently love to capitalize words,” he writes). But he directs the most ire at excess verbiage:

Eliminate superfluous words. They serve no purpose other than to make the document sound more legal, which is exactly the opposite of the goal that I am trying to accomplish. Examples of such words are: “hereby,” “herein,” “in and for,” “subject,” “that certain,” “now,” “that,” “undersigned,” “immediately,” “heretofore entered in this case,” “be, and hereby is”–the list goes on and on. Compare the meaning of “Now, therefore, it may be and is hereby ordered that:” with “It is ordered:”

A good opening line for an order would read something like: This case came before the court on the motion of First National Bank seeking relief from the automatic stay. Referring to it as "this case" is the most accurate and succinct description. It is unnecessary to refer to it as "matter,"
"proceeding," "proceedings," "that certain," "subject," or "above titled." If the order is for an adversary proceeding, then refer to it as "this adversary proceeding."

Refer to the automatic stay, simply as the automatic stay, not the automatic stay of actions. Do not refer to an order granting relief from the automatic stay as an order for relief. An order for relief is something entirely different.

In addition to superfluous words, watch for superfluous and wordy phrases. Examples include referring to a motion as "filed with the court" or an "order heretofore entered in this case. How about "order?"

Full post as published by Law Blog - WSJ.com on December 15, 2009 (boomark / email).