As a writer of speeches and scripts, I have been struck by the Congressional grilling of Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor. It reminds me of the challenge I've faced in my own career.
My interest stems from the way the opposition has focused less on Judge Sotomayor's lengthy judicial record and more on a couple of her statements in public forums.
Several years ago Justice Antonin Scalia in a reference to the Court's verdict on abortion rights said, "I did my best to overturn it." Later in the same presentation he decried that Federal judicial nominees are reviewed less "on whether they are good lawyers or not, but whether they agree with us" -- making it clear the reference included questions on abortion.
In other words, judge the judge based on his or her judgments rather than on random comments in nonjudicial settings.
The difference between legal and non-legal has always been fascinating (read "frustrating") since my writing has too often been subject to the edits and/or deletions of an organization's attorney. Lawyers and writers approach words from different perspectives.
Lawyers want their audience to draw only one meaning from what they write. They use language that is so precise it can be unwieldy. But they have a captive audience in the judges, opposing attorneys and other parties involved in the issue.
On the other hand writers like me are trying to reach people who can ignore my material at any point -- assuming they pay any attention in the first place. (If you're still reading this, you're a person of unusual perception.) So what I write must be not only clear but concise -- and catchy.
Most lawyers like "clear," but "concise" may leave too much out and "catchy" -- forget it. Even common expressions aren't safe. I once used the phrase "at the end of the day."
"Do you mean midnight?" the attorney asked. The negotiation when downhill from there.
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Interesting. And that closing anecdote is priceless. It all reminded me of when I covered the Supreme Court as a very wet-behind-the-ears 24-year-old. I found out very quickly that writers and lawyers used the language quite differently, after combing through hundreds of legal briefs every month. I actually needed to consult a formal guide to legalese, published by the Pennsylvania Bar Association.
On another topic, glad to see you'll be joining the huge mob next week at the event at Shaker Country Club. Hope I'll be able to find you there to catch up, amid the giant crowd.
One lawyer, my brother-in-law, would disagree with my argument about writing differences. He maintains that a brief should be as compelling as a novel. Hmmm.
I'm wondering how many of the 600 who say they're attending. I think I rsvp'd and then somehow cancelled. So I re-rsvp'd, that is, if I did it the right way.
Anyway, hope to see you there or somewhere.
I'll be the guy with lots of beautiful 20-something women eagerly buzzing about. Alas, that's only a fantasy...
But maybe 30 or 40-somethings ....
That would work just fine at my advanced age. In fact, probably even better...
Post a Comment