Why Don’t Law Firms Give New Associates a Self-Editing Checklist?

I’ve never understood why law firms don’t give new associates a self-editing checklist.

It could list:

—the firm’s style preferences,
—each partners’ pet peeves, and
—common mistakes to watch for and avoid.

If I had a law firm, I would require all associates to edit their own drafts using the checklist and to fix, correct, and polish the drafts BEFORE they hand them in.

But instead, associates are regularly left to:

—piece together clues from random firm models,
—fly largely blind about each partners’ style preferences, and
—piss partners off by using their pet peeves.

The result? Partners spend too much time editing, and associates get hit with walls of red ink.

👉 EVERYone could be saved SO much time and angst if there were clear ground rules in place before that occurs.

So, I’m going to try to create a set of rules for you to consider:

—I have been compiling a proofing checklist of common mistakes I see associates make.
—I’ll leave it for you and your team to add in your particular firm’s style & format wants.

BUT: I need your help with partner pet peeves.

⬇️

These are some of my pet peeves.

See any that bother you, too?

1: “I resonate with this”

— is just so wrong —> “This resonates with me.”

2: “utilize”

 — what a nails-on-chalkboard, needlessly complex word! —> “use” will do

3: “the reason is because”

— that’s been wrong forever; ugh! —> replace “because” with “that”

4: “plethora” (for positive things)

— check that icky connotation! Try using “myriad” instead

5: “As such”

— must you? then learn how to! —> Otherwise, use “therefore”

6: “Specifically”

— just spit it out!

***
Fondly,

💌 Amanda

🗳️ What are YOUR pet peeves?

#DearLegalWriter