Perspective

Grammatically Speaking, Are You Correct?

by Ian Connor Bifferato, Esquire

One of the first indications of a declining culture is the loss of its language. The culture that I am referring to in this instance is the most celebrated culture of the Delaware Bar. Email has clearly been one of the largest contributors to the rampant decline of civilization in general; at least to the extent that you understand and accept as part of the definition of “civilization” as a “refinement of thought, manners or taste,” as does Merriam-Webster. And we, as a group have not been insulated.

How many emails have your received that confirm your suspicions that most lawyers are indeed grammatically challenged? This is not a genetic predisposition to which we as a legal community are helpless victims of our own evolution. No, this is a semi-conscious decision by professionals to forgo our traditional value for the written language and allow ourselves to sink into the quagmire of run-on sentences, split infinitives and worst of all - those dangling modifiers. Is there anything more offensive than another lawyer dangling their modifiers with such arrogant indifference that would have been unheard of even 10 years ago?

It may sound like a funny or silly sort of problem until you are faced with it on a daily basis and realize that we are only a couple of steps away as a profession from finishing all of our sentences with “:-)” in order to convey happy thoughts to the lawyers with whom we communicate (makes me feel all warm and fuzzy). Can you see the opinions coming down from the Third Circuit on a reversal with each sentence ending in “>:-(“ rather than a period in order to allow the Court to further express its dismay with the decision below? Then there will be the contempt motions: “Your Honor Mr. Smith repeatedly and unabashedly used the unhappy man face in each of his communications with my office and, frankly, it was uncalled for and unprofessional and I demand fees and costs for this behavior.”

Personally, I blame email for the further degradation of many aspects of the legal profession. Do you know that the Superior Court was recently compelled to promulgate guidelines for attorney behavior, which included a reminder to attorneys to wear a suit to Court! What is next: “Counsel are reminded that flip flops are not proper attire for motion days”? In addition, you have heard over and over about avoiding the temptation to fire off an email in anger that you might regret because the email process does not have the “cooling off” period inherent in letter writing. This is always brought up in the context of the slippage in civility and professionalism that Delaware lawyers have always held in highest regard. The other not so obvious casualty of our world of instant informal communication and 24 hour availability and access is the abjection of civilization.

One of the primary characteristics that has traditionally set us apart from other professionals such as accountants and physicians, besides their well practiced skills on the golf course, is our ability to effectively, artfully and correctly communicate. Do not mistake this diatribe as an absurd call for our profession to abandon email as a means of communication. Rather, take it as a plea to return to the good old days when outdated concepts like punctuation, capitalization, spelling and, yes even grammar, mattered. It is the pace at which the practice moves today that makes it often too easy and sometimes apparently “necessary” to forgo the formalities of “proper English.”

Consider the impact of proper punctuation in the following usage:
“A woman, without her man, is nothing.
A woman: without her, man is nothing.”1

Same words, vastly different meaning. Imagine the impact of misused punctuation in a proposed order submitted to the Court.

In speaking with the other lawyers in my firm, we have come to the realization that it is difficult to strike the correct balance between obsessing over language and grammar and practical and effective “word smithing.” It comes down to simply making sure that if you occasionally cringe when you read something over that have already you sent out, then consider spending a little extra time before releasing the next document or communication. From what I understand, judges notice it and clients definitely do. You can bet that everyone who reads your product makes a judgment about you based on what is on the paper. Will a judge read your brief and think to herself or himself “Wow . . . really terrible legal argument, but so well written, I am going his way today”? Probably not, but that same judge may be a little less likely to cut you some slack when you are standing there at an oral argument if he or she thinks that you really let the writing in your submissions slide because you did not care.

I recognize the development of my own bad habits, which are too numerous to mention here, and I am by no means writing from an ivory tower on this issue. I am sure that I will hear plenty about any mistakes that I made in this very Perspective column. The point, I suppose, is that every member of the Delaware Bar wants to maintain Delaware as the paragon of professionalism, and keeping those modifiers from dangling in public is just another small way that we can do that.

Consider asking your firm to pick up a copy of the following three books for you:
RYAN GARNER, A DICTIONARY OF MODERN LEGAL USAGE (2d ed. 1995).
RYAN GARNER, THE WINNING BRIEF (2d ed. 2004).
RYAN GARNER, THE ELEMENTS OF LEGAL STYLE (2d ed. 2002).

Another good (and pretty funny) read is the New York Times best seller EATS, SHOOTS & LEAVES by Lynne Truss. She has serious and self-acknowledged issues with punctuation that go well beyond any realm of normalcy, but it will definitely call your attention to your own foibles in your writing.

1 LYNNE TRUSS, EATS, SHOOTS & LEAVES 9 (2003).

Return to July/August 2004 Table of Contents.