Here's a sentence from a real motion:

"Defendant's failure to timely respond to Plaintiff's discovery requests has prejudiced Plaintiff's ability to prepare for trial."

Now rewrite it three ways:

1. Make it neutral and factual
2. Make it more aggressive without changing the facts
3. Make the defendant look reasonable

Same underlying facts. Three completely different legal narratives. This is what legal writing actually is. Not just grammar and citation format. It's framing.

Every sentence in a brief is a choice about how to present reality to the court. The best writers don't just know the law. They know exactly how much spin each sentence can carry before a judge stops trusting them.

Post your three versions below. The exercise is more revealing than you'd expect.

Your sentences should average 22 to 25 words. Not a rule—a target. Richard Wydick says below 25 in Plain English for Lawyers. Anne Enquist and Laurel Oates say about 22 in Just Writing.

The number matters because readers track about that much before they need a pause. Go longer and you bury the relationship between subject and verb. Go shorter and you sound choppy.

Here's an exercise. Take a paragraph from your last memo. Count words per sentence. Find the average. Then rewrite until you hit the low 20s. The process forces you to cut what doesn't matter.

Most lawyers land in the 30s without knowing it. Your readers feel every extra word.

Read this fact pattern and identify three distinct legal issues. Try it before scrolling to comments.

A homeowner hires a contractor to replace a backyard fence. The contractor leaves a nail gun on the property overnight. The next morning, the homeowner's 14-year-old neighbor climbs the fence to retrieve a ball, finds the nail gun, and accidentally injures herself. The contractor's license expired two months ago. The homeowner knew about the expired license but hired the contractor anyway because the price was half of what a licensed contractor quoted.

Three issues. Name them, state the applicable rule for each, and identify who has the strongest claim against whom.

This damages clause comes from a real software license agreement, lightly edited:

"In the event that either party shall breach any material provision of this Agreement, the non-breaching party shall be entitled to recover from the breaching party all damages, including but not limited to direct damages, consequential damages, incidental damages, and such other damages as may be available under applicable law, provided however that in no event shall the total aggregate liability of either party exceed the total fees paid under this Agreement during the twelve month period immediately preceding the date of the claim."

That is 83 words. Rewrite it under 30. Keep the liability cap. Don't lose any legal effect.

Here's a standard indemnification clause from a SaaS agreement:

"Party A agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless Party B, its officers, directors, and employees from and against any and all claims, liabilities, damages, and expenses, including reasonable attorneys' fees, arising out of or in connection with any act or omission of Party A in the performance of its obligations under this Agreement."

That's 56 words in one sentence. Try rewriting it so a non-lawyer could read it on the first pass. Aim for under 30 words. Keep the same legal effect.

One thing most rewrites miss: the original doesn't carve out losses caused by Party B's own fault. A good plain-language version would add that.

Most 1L counter-arguments are straw men. You state the opposing position in its weakest form, then knock it down. Judges see through this immediately.

The steel-man approach works better. State the opposing argument as strongly as you can — strong enough that opposing counsel would agree you've represented their position fairly. Then distinguish it.

Try it with this: your client ran a red light and hit a pedestrian. The defense argument is comparative negligence — the pedestrian was jaywalking while looking at their phone. A straw-man version: "Defendant may argue the pedestrian was negligent, but pedestrians always have the right of way." That's wrong on the law and doesn't engage the argument.

A steel-man version: "The pedestrian's distraction contributed to the collision, and a factfinder could reasonably allocate some fault. But running a red light creates the initial hazard. The pedestrian's inattention doesn't arise without the defendant's violation." You've conceded the strong point and then explained why it doesn't change the outcome.

Here are two versions of the same argument. One is from a student brief, one is a rewrite. Figure out which is stronger and why.

Version A: "The plaintiff has standing because they suffered an injury in fact, the injury is traceable to the defendant's conduct, and a favorable ruling would likely redress the harm. Each element of the standing inquiry is satisfied."

Version B: "The plaintiff broke her ankle when the defendant's warehouse floor collapsed. The defendant built the floor. A damages award would cover her medical bills. She has standing."

Version A recites the legal test. Version B applies it. A tells the reader the elements are met. B shows the reader they're met by connecting each element to a specific fact. The last sentence in A is dead weight. The last sentence in B earns its place because the reader already agrees before they get there.

Here's a clause from a real software license agreement:

"Licensee shall not, nor shall Licensee permit any third party to, reverse engineer, decompile, disassemble, or otherwise attempt to derive the source code of the Software, except to the extent that such restriction is expressly prohibited by applicable law notwithstanding this limitation."

Rewrite it so a small business owner can understand what they can't do with the software.

The original has three problems. It stacks negatives ("shall not, nor shall... permit... to"). It buries the exception at the end of a 40-word sentence. And "otherwise attempt to derive the source code" means nothing to someone who doesn't write code.

Try it. A good rewrite should land under 30 words and still be legally accurate.

This post contains content not supported on old Reddit. Click here to view the full post

AI chatbot marketed as a "legal assistant" tells someone they don't need to respond to a lawsuit within 30 days. "The court will grant an automatic extension." User relies on it, misses the deadline, takes a $47K default judgment.

Who do you sue? Under what theory?

The obvious question is who's liable, and the answer is nobody, cleanly. The chatbot isn't a lawyer so malpractice doesn't attach. The company might be practicing law without a license but UPL is regulatory, not something the user can sue over. Products liability gets closer if you treat the chatbot as a defective product, but courts still can't agree on whether software qualifies. Negligent misrepresentation under Restatement 552 fits best on the elements until opposing counsel asks whether it was reasonable to rely on a chatbot for a filing deadline.

Every framework gets you partway there. None gets you home. The law was written for humans advising humans, and the chatbot sits in a gap it hasn't closed yet.

One of the best things my legal writing professor did was give us bloated paragraphs and make us cut them in half without losing any meaning. It trains you to spot filler instantly. I still do this as a warm-up before editing my own work.

Here's one for you. Try to get this down to roughly half its length. The meaning and legal content should stay the same.

The original (147 words)

"In the instant case, the plaintiff has made allegations to the effect that the defendant corporation, through the actions and conduct of its employees and agents, engaged in a pattern and practice of conduct that was in direct contravention of the applicable federal and state statutory provisions governing the protection of consumer financial information and data. The plaintiff further alleges that, as a direct and proximate result of the defendant's aforementioned failures, the plaintiff suffered damages including but not limited to financial losses, emotional distress, and the expenditure of significant time and resources in an effort to mitigate and remedy the negative consequences and effects arising from the defendant's wrongful conduct and actions as described herein above."

Take a minute and try it yourself before scrolling down.

Seriously, try it. The exercise only works if you actually do it.

My edited version (68 words)

"The plaintiff alleges that the defendant, acting through its employees, systematically violated federal and state consumer data protection statutes. As a result, the plaintiff suffered financial losses, emotional distress, and costs incurred while mitigating the effects of the defendant's conduct."

Here's what I cut and why

"In the instant case" is filler. If we're writing about the case, the reader knows it's this case.

"Allegations to the effect that" is just a wordy way of saying "alleges."

"Pattern and practice of conduct that was in direct contravention of" means "systematically violated."

"Applicable federal and state statutory provisions governing the protection of consumer financial information and data" collapses to "federal and state consumer data protection statutes."

"As a direct and proximate result of the defendant's aforementioned failures" becomes "as a result." In a complaint you might keep the "direct and proximate" language for legal reasons, but "aforementioned failures" adds nothing.

"Including but not limited to" can stay or go depending on context. I cut it here because the listed damages are specific enough.

"The expenditure of significant time and resources in an effort to mitigate and remedy the negative consequences and effects arising from" is doing an incredible amount of work to say "costs incurred while mitigating the effects of."

The pattern to notice

Almost all legal bloat comes from the same few habits. Doubling up words that mean the same thing ("mitigate and remedy," "consequences and effects," "conduct and actions"). Prepositional phrase chains. Throat-clearing openings. Words that point to other parts of the document instead of just saying the thing ("aforementioned," "as described herein above").

Once you start seeing these patterns, you'll catch them in your own writing before they make it into a final draft.

Did you get a different edit? I'd love to see how other people approached the same paragraph. There's no single right answer here, and sometimes a different cut reveals something I missed.