Write to be understood by your reader

When you write in your native language you will regularly find yourself adapting your language to suit your reader. How you write to opposing counsel - your choice of words and tone of voice - will differ from how you write to your office colleague. You will email a client for whom you have acted for years in a more familiar tone than a client who has instructed you for the first time. It is natural. You may do it without thinking; your communication will be just as clear and effective.

When writing in English as a second language, you may feel that you communicate less accurately and clearly with a smaller vocabulary than when you write in your native language. My task as a teacher of lawyers is to balance my two aims: to encourage the effective use of the language skills you already have and to increase and improve your ability to communicate in English as a second language.

I recently read a law report written in the most straightforward language yet communicated clearly. It was drafted simply because the judge wanted her decision to be understood by the person most affected by it: the mother of two children aged 4 and 6.

The court had been asked to remove the children from their mother and place them for adoption. I encourage you to read the decision in full, which can be downloaded here as a pdf.

The mother, referred to as N, had learning problems and found reading and writing difficult. The judge agreed with the lawyers present that she would write her judgment in simple words to make it easier for N to understand. The mother "wasn’t very good with words or at reading and writing".

And that is what the judge did, with tender clarity. Of course, she inevitably had to use correct legal terminology - "intermediary", "Guardian", "care or placement order", "written submissions" - but these were always explained as soon as they were used.

• A threshold document: what social workers say went wrong in the past.

• Domestic violence: parents fighting.

• Independent: the social worker was not on anyone’s side.

• I dispense with [the children’s] consent: I decide for them.

• Letterbox contact: I would like both parents to write or send cards to the children every year so that they can get these letters or cards when they grow up.

The judge did not cite any legislation but had to demonstrate that she understood her duty under the Children Act 1989 - that the children’s welfare was “the court’s paramount consideration”. So instead of using those words, she said, "My job is to put [children] X and Y first at all times".

The judge decided to remove the children from N and place them with permanent carers, but she wanted their mother to know that she did not condemn her. She said,

I would like N to know that I understand she loves X and Y very much. I know she has attended contact which has been very nice. I know that she has done her best and X and Y will know that too when they are older.

I would like N to meet the adopters if this is possible so that they can see that she is a nice person.

A judge would not usually use the word “nice” or “nice person” in a formal decision, but it was the right word to use for a person “who finds reading and writing difficult to understand". The mother would know precisely what the judge meant by "nice".

I used an online tool to check the language of the written judgment for readability. It can be understood by fifth and sixth graders (ages 10 and 11). It does not condescend (talk down) to the mother.

Compare it with the following extract from a decision made in the same year by the same judge, also in a childcare case.

During the hearing, the Social Worker took instructions from her manager at my direction. The indication of the Local Authority, in simple terms and adopting my words, was that if the child was to remain with the mother, the local authority would be issuing public law proceedings for a care order and seeking removal from the mother's care. In the event that this court sanctioned the change of residence to the father they did not consider that they needed to share Parental Responsibility and would not be issuing public law proceedings.

I explained this to the mother, she remained resolute that she was an excellent mother and change was not necessary. She made allegations of lying against Dr Alwin with no obvious support at present and she also criticised the Social Worker in similar terms saying that no-one listened to her.

Using the same online analysis tool, the language of this passage was difficult to read and required a graduate education or above to understand. The same judge used very different language because the audience for each judgment was different, but I would dare to say that each understood her equally well.

In other articless, I will explain how you can use language that changes from reader to reader. Still, the lesson to be learned here is that precise communication does not depend on having a huge English vocabulary. The judge could explain her decision using words a 10-year-old could understand. And that should encourage all lawyers who use English as a second language and who think their vocabulary is not good enough. Even simple language can be clear and concise, and still communicate completely.