SC Lawyer, May 2004, #7. May 2004 The Scrivener Judge Bell's top ten rules of writing Part One.

• Author: By Scott Mo\xEFse

South Carolina Lawyer

2004.

SC Lawyer, May 2004, #7.

May 2004 The Scrivener Judge Bell's top ten rules of writing Part One

South Carolina LawyerMay 2004May 2004 The Scrivener Judge Bell's top ten rules of writing Part OneBy Scott MoïseJudge Randall T. Bell served on the Court of Appeals for eleven years, during which he wrote opinions that became widely known for their clarity, thoroughness, and substance. Judge Bell was well educated, having earned degrees from William and Mary, Oxford, Harvard, and Harvard Law School. Judge Bell then worked for the Attorney General of South Carolina, the McNair law firm, and the University of South Carolina School of Law. He was elected to the Court of Appeals in 1983 and the South Carolina Supreme Court in 1994. Tragically, Judge Bell died of unexpected heart complications nine days after his election to the supreme court. He was only 49 years old.

Judge Bell's superior communication skills were not confined to writing. Even after leaving the law school as a full-time professor, he returned to teach as an adjunct faculty member and to give his famous "Law School is Different" speech every year at the first-year law student orientation. During that orientation, new law students entered the auditorium full of false bravado. The instant Judge Bell spoke, however, that bravado fell away, and we hung on his every word. When he told us that our previous scholastic successes meant nothing, we believed him. When he said that we would never again sit back while teachers did all the talking and all the work, we knew those days were truly over. When he told us that one in three of us would be gone before graduation, all of us knew in our hearts that we would be one of the unlucky ones waiting tables again instead of graduating. By the end of that speech, the refrain of "law school is different" was burned into our minds forever. Similarly, his writing also stayed with us because of his talent for getting straight to the point in the simplest, most forceful manner.

Over pimento cheeseburgers recently, Steve McKelvey-one of Judge Bell's former law clerks-regaled the lunch table with stories from his clerkship. Steve also revealed that Judge Bell had a "top ten" list of rules of writing. Fortunately, Steve retained a copy of that list; unfortunately, the list contains only the bare rules, and not Judge Bell's annotations, so the explanations that follow are reconstructed in part from the comments of some of those whom he influenced. The first four of Judge Bell's "Top Ten Rules of Writing" are as follows:

RULE #1: Express Actions in Verbs; Make the Actor the Subject.

Stated another way, use active instead of passive voice. Passive voice makes the subject of the verb the receiver of the action. ("The package was taken by the clerk of court") instead of the subject being the actor ("The clerk took the package.") Passive voice weakens the sentence and is excessively wordy.

PASSIVE: The physical evidence from the accident was presented to the jury by Trooper Stankus, who is the South Carolina Patrolman of the Year.

ACTIVE: Trooper Stankus, South Carolina's Patrolman of the Year, presented the physical evidence to the jury.

Note, however, that in some rare occasions, such as when the actor is unknown, passive voice is acceptable:

The ballots were counted twice for accuracy.

RULE #2: Delete words that add no meaning.

After Judge Bell wrote an opinion, he went back through it word for word, looking for the simplest words, deleting any word that was not necessary. Some words are necessary in some sentences, but are unnecessary in others simply because the words are repetitious or otherwise do not add any meaning to the sentence. On the other hand, some words-which authors E. B. White and James J. Kilpatrick call "leeches that infest the pond of prose, sucking the blood of words"-are unnecessary in almost every sentence. Examples of these are: very, quite, rather, generally, and really. Take them out, along with any other word that does not further the meaning of your sentence.

WORDY: It seems that Ms. Lovett was very upset and angry when she received the letter from the insurance company, which denied the insurance coverage for the lawsuit against her company.

CORRECT: Ms. Lovett was angry when she read the insurer's letter denying coverage for the lawsuit against her company.

RULE #3: Break Excessively Long Sentences into Shorter Sentences.

Although writing should not consist of an unrelenting series of short, simple sentences strung together, take a hard look at long sentences and decide if they would be clearer if shortened.

EXCESSIVELY LONG: The defendant walked quietly into the courtroom, but he immediately began talking loudly to his attorney and to visitors in the gallery, which caused Judge Goodstein to admonish the defendant and his lawyer to keep quiet or face charges of contempt.

BETTER: After the defendant walked quietly into the courtroom, he began talking loudly to his attorney and to visitors. His behavior caused Judge Goodstein to admonish him and his lawyer to keep quiet or face charges of contempt.

RULE #4: Place the Elements of the Sentence in Their Natural or Logical Order.

This rule asks the writer to arrange the sentence order in a logical pattern to show how the parts relate to each other and keep the reader's interest.

(1) Agent - Action- Goal

The "agent" refers to the actor in the sentence, and normally, the actor should be placed first in the sentence. The "action" refers to the verb. Finally, the "goal" is the predicate, which tells what the subject does.

David [agent] walked down the aisle of the courtroom [action] and sat behind the bar near his mother [goal].

(2) Time

Under this rule, the writer arranges the sentence in the order of occurrence.

First, Stephanie lived in Orangeburg and clerked for Judge Williams on the Fourth Circuit, and next, she returned to Charleston and clerked for Judge Duffy in the South Carolina federal district court.

(3) General to specific

Judge Bell required, when applicable, that the sentence begin with a general statement, followed by specific examples to support the statement. This structure is particularly suitable for argumentative writing. An example of this order is as follows:

The Court should dismiss this action because it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction and the Plaintiff failed to serve the Defendant properly.

In this example, the general statement ("the Court should dismiss this action") is followed and supported by specific supporting evidence ([1] the court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction and [2] the plaintiff failed to serve the Defendant properly).

(4) Cause to Effect

When applicable, a sentence may be structured around a cause and effect. Judge Bell preferred the cause to precede the effect in that kind of sentence because the reader can grasp the relationship between cause and effect more easily if written in this order.

EFFECT-TO-CAUSE: Injuries in automobile accidents can be prevented by wearing seat belts. [The effect (preventing injuries) precedes the cause (wearing seatbelts)].

CAUSE-TO-EFFECT: Wearing seatbelts prevents automobile injuries.

This organization produces a sentence that is not only more concise, it allows the reader to follow the author's argument and, hopefully, arrive at the same conclusion.

(5) Climax

This type of sentence structure begins with elements that lead to the main idea or resolution at the end. Winston Churchill used this device to great effect.

"[W]e shall fight on the beaches; we shall fight on the landing grounds; we shall fight in the fields and in the streets; we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender."

The next column will cover Judge Bell's remaining rules.

Copyright (c) 2004 by the South Carolina Bar. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced without written permission.