Dear Legal Writer, I used to use three expressions in briefs, but I don’t think I’d use them today. Let me know what you think:

“It is beyond peradventure that”
 “It is beyond cavil that”
 “It is axiomatic that”

As to the first, I am sure I’d never use it today. “Peradventure” is pretentious, and few readers know what it means. (“Peradventure” means doubt or uncertainty.)

On the second, I have a similar concern. “Cavil” means “to raise trivial objections or doubts,” but I can’t be sure my reader would recognize it.

—What do you think: is “beyond cavil” something you would use in a brief?

And on the third—the least offensive of the bunch—although I’ve historically seen it used frequently in briefs, today when I see it, I cringe.

Why? Because “axiomatic” often substitutes for analysis.

It tells the reader something is self-evident instead of showing why it is true. In a brief, that can feel conclusory—and judges tend to prefer a clear rule supported by authority. A better way to say “it’s axiomatic that” is to just state the rule directly or anchor it in law.

For example:

Before: “It is axiomatic that a contract requires consideration.”

 After: “A contract requires consideration.” [cite]

—Do you agree?

I’m especially curious what you think about “axiomatic.”

Thank you!!!

💌 Amanda

#DearLegalWriter

P.S. Here’s a potential response from you to show how to participate in a comment:

1: Would not use
 2: Might use
 3: Still use regularly

***