By prioritizing efficiency over mentorship, have we created a culture where editing is mechanical and learning is minimal?

I submit: Yes.

🔹 In the past, legal writing growth demanded active engagement:

Before we had redlines, that’s how partners communicated their edits on our drafts—

(often with little notes scribbled in the margins, up on the side, and over onto the back page (and sometimes on to a side rider)).

So as I head home today to Philly and leave these copies behind in Rhode Island, it’s not because I can do without them—it’s because they’re so essential to me, I keep a set in each place.

📘 Bryan A. Garner’s “Legal Writing in Plain English”:

❌ “Assuming, arguendo, that the case is ripe for review, the plaintiff still lacks standing to bring it.”

Try “even if” instead.
It’ll help you sound less dead.

✅ “Even if the case were ripe for review, the plaintiff lacks standing to bring it.”

Dear legal writer, Legal writing is important. As lawyers, we don’t have the luxury of not writing well.

Words are the tools of our trade. We get PAID to wield words to persuade. If WE can’t communicate well, what’s our value anyway?

The word “would” wreaks special havoc in a complaint.

E.g.

❌ “Plaintiff would drive 45 minutes longer for the new role.”

❌ “Plaintiff would contribute $100,000 to the fund.”

Starting in Big Law? Take note!

When I supervised associates, I could always tell when one was less than thrilled to receive a project.

I’d sense a subtle eyeroll,
an inner groan,
or even a little sigh.

So he looks up at you and asks, “Got it?”

You nod, trying to look like you’ve done this several times before.

That’s my acronym for 4 bad words in legal writing:

“comprise” — lawyers always get this wrong

“𝐍𝐨 𝐡𝐞𝐚𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐬?
𝐍𝐨 𝐇𝐄𝐀𝐃𝐈𝐍𝐆𝐒???
𝐃𝐢𝐝 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐝𝐨 𝐚 7-𝐩𝐚𝐠𝐞 𝐅𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐬 𝐬𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐍𝐎 𝐡𝐞𝐚𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐬?”

The partner was incredulous, her voice rising in pitch and exasperation with each question