Writing

Elegant, and Not-So-Elegant, Variation in Legal Writing

Enhance your legal writing by balancing variety and clarity—refresh sentence structures while keeping key terms consistent to engage readers without confusion.
  • Joe Regalia
One of the biggest challenges in legal writing is maintaining a polished, engaging style while ensuring clarity and precision. The key lies in varying your sentence mechanics to keep readers hooked without confusing them by altering essential terms. Here’s how to strike that perfect balance.
Dialogue Tags: These are often repeated without thought, turning what should be smooth, persuasive writing into a tedious read. If you repeatedly use “plaintiff states” or “defendant argues,” it grates on your reader’s ears. You can make a significant improvement by varying both the verbs and the placement of these tags.
Instead of writing
“The plaintiff states that the evidence is clear. The plaintiff states that the defendant breached the contract. The plaintiff states that damages should be awarded.”
Vary with
“The plaintiff argues that the evidence is clear, asserts that the defendant breached the contract, and maintains that damages should be awarded.”
Or mix up the structure entirely
“According to the plaintiff, the evidence is clear. Moreover, the defendant breached the contract, the plaintiff asserts, and damages should be awarded.”
Moving the dialogue tag from the start of the sentence to the middle or end not only breaks the monotony but also gives emphasis to different parts of your statement.
Transition Words: Another common pitfall is leaning too heavily on words like “furthermore,” “however,” and “therefore.” These words are essential, but overusing them makes your writing feel like a list of bullet points strung together.
If you find yourself writing
“Furthermore, the statute is unambiguous. Furthermore, case law supports this reading. Furthermore, the plaintiff’s argument is consistent with precedent.”
Try instead
“The statute is unambiguous. Case law, moreover, supports this reading. The plaintiff’s argument aligns with precedent.”
You can also vary by implication
“The statute is unambiguous, a point case law only reinforces. As for the plaintiff’s argument, it aligns neatly with precedent.”
Sometimes, dropping the transition entirely and letting the relationship between sentences speak for itself can be the most sophisticated choice.
Prepositional Phrases: These are sneaky little culprits of repetition, especially in legal writing. Phrases like “in accordance with” or “with respect to” are often overused and can make sentences feel weighed down.
If your writing says
“In accordance with the statute, the defendant must comply. In accordance with precedent, this compliance is non-negotiable.”
Simplify and vary
“Under the statute, the defendant must comply. Precedent makes this obligation non-negotiable.”
Combining or restructuring sentences can help
“The statute requires compliance, a mandate that precedent underscores as non-negotiable.”
Or try to cut down the words
“Statutory and precedential requirements alike make this compliance mandatory.”
Introducing Legal Authority: Repeatedly starting sentences with “according to the court” or “as case law states” makes your argument feel clunky.
Instead of
“According to the court, the rule applies strictly. According to case law, this interpretation has been upheld repeatedly. According to the court, exceptions are rare.”
Change to
“The court applies the rule strictly, and case law repeatedly upholds this interpretation. Rare exceptions, the court has noted, are hard to come by.”
Or flip the structure
“Strict application of the rule is the norm, as the court has emphasized, and case law supports this unwavering interpretation.”
Another technique is to integrate citations more seamlessly
“Case law leaves little room for flexibility, echoing the court’s strict approach to this rule.”
While variety works wonders for your mechanics, your content words—like names of parties, legal concepts, and statutory references—must remain consistent. This is where clarity becomes non-negotiable.
Names of Parties: Using multiple references for the same person or group muddies your message. If you start by referring to “the plaintiff,” don’t switch to “the claimant” or “the party” elsewhere in the text. Readers need this stability to follow your argument without extra mental gymnastics.
Consistent
“The plaintiff argues that damages should be awarded. The plaintiff contends that the defendant breached the contract.”
Inconsistent
“The plaintiff argues that damages should be awarded. The party contends that the defendant breached the contract.”
Even though the latter example might seem innocuous, it forces your reader to pause and confirm that “the party” is still “the plaintiff.” Never make your reader work to understand who or what you’re talking about.
Legal Terms of Art: Technical language in law isn’t just jargon—it’s precision in action. If you call a doctrine “res ipsa loquitur,” don’t try to switch things up by calling it “the doctrine of speaking for itself.” Stick to the exact term every time to avoid misinterpretation.
Consistent
“Res ipsa loquitur applies when the cause of the injury is under the defendant’s control. Res ipsa loquitur suggests that negligence can be inferred.”
Inconsistent
“Res ipsa loquitur applies when the cause of the injury is under the defendant’s control. The doctrine of speaking for itself suggests that negligence can be inferred.”
Again, even if you think you’re helping the reader, you’re actually undermining clarity.
Statutory References: The same rule applies to legal provisions. If you call something “Section 1983,” use that term consistently. Referring to it as “the civil rights statute” might seem harmless, but it introduces a tiny seed of doubt in the reader’s mind about whether you’re referencing the same thing.
Consistent
“Section 1983 provides a remedy for civil rights violations. Courts have interpreted Section 1983 as a crucial mechanism for enforcing constitutional rights.”
Inconsistent
“Section 1983 provides a remedy for civil rights violations. The civil rights statute is seen as a crucial mechanism for enforcing constitutional rights.”
The stakes are high in legal writing, and consistency in your content words assures your reader that you’re precise and reliable.
The art of legal writing lies in creating a seamless reading experience. Varying your sentence mechanics keeps your writing lively and engaging, while uniformity in your key terms keeps it clear and authoritative. Every sentence should feel deliberate—never repetitive, never ambiguous.
Joe Regalia
Write.law co-founder Joe Regalia combines his experience as both practitioner and professor to create exciting new ways to teach legal skills.  Learn more about Joe

Sign up for our newsletter!

Get writing and other legal practice tips delivered to your inbox every other Thursday.
Thanks for joining!
We’ve sent a welcome email to your inbox.