“Clichés should generally be used sparingly in any writing, but especially in legal writing”, writes Bryan Garner in Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage. Similar warnings are given to Dutch writers.
Garner lists dozens of clichés in his legal style guides. Almost all English style guides have a section on the subject (including The Economist’s). The Oxford blog has a good article on it. Articles regularly appear in media sources, including prominent newspapers and the BBC, warning readers about the English words and phrases that have become worn (afgesleten), hackneyed (banaal) and commonplace (gemeenplaats). Thoughtful legal writers can take advantage of these guidelines to understand which phrases have outlived their usefulness.
After working with Dutch lawyers for 15 years, my impression is that their English legal writing does not include many English clichés, of either the legal kind or otherwise. I haven’t seen any research on this, but I suspect that spouting clichés is something you really do well only in your own language. It may be that many Dutch lawyers have simply never learned the English clichés. Or perhaps it’s the case that a lawyer working in a second language picks his or her words too carefully for clichés to become a style problem.
When a Dutch legal professional does use an English cliché, however, it can be rather glaring. The clichés are presumably picked up from other lawyers, journalistic writing, business writing and so on.
Looking at the five sources linked above (Garner, Economist, Oxford, Washington Post and the BBC), here are some of the phrases that Dutch lawyers may be surprised to find are considered cliché.
- absolutely
- at first glance
- at the end of the day
- at this moment in time
- be that as it may
- clean slate
- fact of the matter
- focus on the bottom line
- going forward
- if you will
- in a nutshell
- in the final analysis
- level playing field
- name and shame
- needless to say
- predawn raid [usually referred to as a “dawn raid” by Dutch lawyers]
- responsibility
- time is of the essence [when not used in a legal sense]
- throw the baby out with the bathwater
- to all intents and purposes
- well reasoned
- white-shoe law firm
- with all due respect
It is not always possible or easy to avoid clichés like these because they can be rather useful and effective. In this list, what surprises me are “in a nutshell” and “well reasoned”, because these are phrases I find useful and still actively use.
Garner points out that “it is the habitual use of clichés that is stylistically objectionable”. The Economist adds, “The ones most to be avoided are the latest, the trendiest. Since they tend to appeal to people who do not have the energy to pick their own words, they are often found in the wooden prose of bureaucrats, academics and businessmen.” And lawyers, I might add.
It seems that a Dutch legal writer not only has to learn these English phrases and use them correctly, but then also later be ready to avoid them when they become worn. Clichéd writing is held in low regard.
To be honest, though, I’d prefer a Dutch lawyer to use one of these English clichés correctly rather than use a completely incorrect phrase. Avoiding outright language mistakes is more important than avoiding style errors (although ultimately the goal is to avoid both kinds of errors).
What about Dutch clichés? Dutch legal writing is as filled with clichés as English legal writing, but I cannot say that I’ve noticed many Dutch clichés translated literally into English. There is one that does come immediately to mind: “on the one hand…on the other hand”. I suppose Dutch lawyers are being extra careful when they write in English, so the literal translation of a Dutch cliché is unlikely to pass the first review.
Many English expressions are oddly overused by Dutch lawyers, but these fall more into the categories of Dutchisms and false friends, so I will deal with them in another post.
Greg Korbee (February 2014)
All rights reserved. Liability disclaimer applies.