Does good legal writing matter? Consider the fact that New York Times columnist David Brooks says it's Harriet Miers's bad writing that disqualifies her for the Supreme Court:
Of all the words written about Harriet Miers, none are more disturbing than the ones she wrote herself. In the early 90's, while she was president of the Texas bar association, Miers wrote a column called "President's Opinion" for The Texas Bar Journal. It is the largest body of public writing we have from her, and sad to say, the quality of thought and writing doesn't even rise to the level of pedestrian.
I don't know whether to laugh or cry. It is embarrassing. Harriet Miers made all the writing mistakes that BarWrite teaches students to avoid. Why didn't anyone tell her? She was the president of the Texas bar association. She could so easily have hired an editor. Here are samples. First, Ms. Miers's wordiness:
We have to understand and appreciate that achieving justice for all is in jeopardy before a call to arms to assist in obtaining support for the justice system will be effective. Achieving the necessary understanding and appreciation of why the challenge is so important, we can then turn to the task of providing the much needed support.
More and more, the intractable problems in our society have one answer: broad-based intolerance of unacceptable conditions and a commitment by many to fix problems.
Next, she uses the passive voice, not just once but twice:
When consensus of diverse leadership can be achieved on issues of importance, the greatest impact can be achieved.
Here she piles on the wordiness in vapid bromides. She focuses so intently on bringing all parties together, that she never thinks through any problem:
An organization must also implement programs to fulfill strategies established through its goals and mission. Methods for evaluation of these strategies are a necessity. With the framework of mission, goals, strategies, programs, and methods for evaluation in place, a meaningful budgeting process can begin.
And she uses cliches:
We have to understand and appreciate that achieving justice for all is in jeopardy before a call to arms to assist in obtaining support for the justice system will be effective. Achieving the necessary understanding and appreciation of why the challenge is so important, we can then turn to the task of providing the much needed support.
Conservatives oppose Harriet Miers because her background in constitutional analysis is inadequate, among other reasons. Brooks says, leaving partisan politics aside, the least we expect of a Supreme Court justice is clear writing and incisive argument:
Surely the threshold skill required of a Supreme Court justice is the ability to write clearly and argue incisively.
Brooks concludes that Harriet Miers's columns in The Texas Bar Journal show that she lacks the skills in writing and argument that are necessary for the Supreme Court.
Does good legal writing matter? Yes, good legal writing does matter.
Note. The New York Times has adopted a subscription-only policy, so there is no link here to Brooks's column, called "In Her Own Words." His October 13, 2005, column on Harriet Miers has been one of the most-visited on the internet.
####
