Too many clauses, too.

Here's a tool to fix both at once:

✏️ Put your subject NEXT TO its verb.

Orig: The plaintiff, before checking with her bank, made an offer on the house.

Rev: The plaintiff made an offer on the house before checking with her bank.

Rev: Before checking with her bank, the plaintiff made an offer on the house.

“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.

And in a Labor & Employment practice (L&E), that’s even more true.

Everyone says “L&E is a writers’ practice,” and in my 20 years of practicing it, I can assure you that’s true.

When you are explaining the law to HR one day and persuading a judge tomorrow about such fact-rich and nuanced matters,

I see them from the full range of legal peeps—
-legal assistants,
-law school applicants,
-law school students, and
-full-fledged lawyers of all levels.

In the attached, I show you how to avoid the 10 most common errors I see.

I hope this will help you in polishing your resume on your own.

I’m a bit of a Latin geek, but most aren’t, and “i.e.” and “e.g.” routinely cause mix-ups.

—In fact, it’s one of the top five mistakes ‘Grammar Girl’ says she sees in technical documents.

Both abbreviations are common in legal writing, too. You should just learn them now so you don’t have to look ‘em up every time. ⤵️

Example: “While reviewing the merger agreement, my coffee spilled.”

—Careless coffee!

Always reviewing my contracts.

👉 Classic dangling modifier: the wrong noun is “doing” the action.

It’s not the coffee reviewing the agreement, it’s you.

❌ The reason the court cancelled is because it rained.

✅ The reason the court cancelled is that it rained.

And yes, this is a HUGE pet peeve of mine.

Why?
—Because “reason” already signals causation.
—So adding “because” adds redundancy.

Even worse, lawyers think they 𝙙𝙤 know how to use it, so they use it too much, like a crutch.

That makes them sound like incompetent amateurs, not the esteemed pros they strive to be.

Let’s make sure you avoid amateurville today, OK? Here’s your guide. ⤵️

Yesterday was Day 2,190.

Six years, to be exact.

Yet somehow, hotels still put me to the test.

They don’t come at you all at once. They poke you. They prod.

First comes the lobby.
Warm smile.
Small talk.

A long list of string cites won’t cut it.

It is FAR more convincing to describe one or two of the cases in a full sentence BEFORE you advance your conclusion.

—Bare parentheticals make your argument harder to follow.

I got straight A’s.
I followed all the rules.
And I never got into any trouble.

“The last of the sweet and innocent,”
the high-school yearbook dubbed me.

That was in 7th grade, but by 9th, my goody two shoes fell out of vogue.

My best friends started resenting me.

It’s potentially THE No. 1 most important part of a brief.

Here’s why:

1: It’s the first thing a court sees.

(—First impressions can be everything.)

2: It’s the first thing a court sees.

“But Amanda,” you say, “many lawyers—even judges—use ‘find’ generically all the time to describe the actions courts take.”

 —I know. You are right about that. But that does not make using “find” right.

🔹 An appellate court doesn’t “find” anything. It renders conclusions of law, not fact.

They save space AND make your writing flow better.

🐣 “it is anticipated that” —> “it is expected that”

🐣 “did not provide any” —> “provided no”

🐣 “pursuant to” —> “under”

***
So what’s in your basket for today?

See if you can spot the best choice:

🔺 As
🔺 For
🔺 Since
✅ Because
▪️ Based on
🔻 As a result of
🔻 For the reason that
🔻 On the grounds that
🔻 In light of the fact that
🔻 On account of the fact that