Write On!, 0617 WYBJ, Vol. 40 No. 3. 52
| Author | John H. Ridge, J.D., Ph.D. Wyoming Attorney General's Office Cheyenne, Wyoming |
Civility in Writing
John H. Ridge, J.D., Ph.D. Wyoming Attorney General's Office Cheyenne, Wyoming
“Mr. President, can't we rein in our tongues . . . and speak to each other and about each other in a more civil fashion? I can disagree with another Senator. I have done so many times in this Chamber. I can state that he is mistaken in his facts; I can state that he is in error. I can do all these things without assaulting his character by calling him a liar, by saying that he lies. Have civility and common courtesy and reasonableness taken leave of this Chamber? Surely the individual vocabularies of Members of this body have not deteriorated to the point that we can only express ourselves in such crude and coarse and offensive language.... Can we no longer engage in reasoned, even intense, partisan exchanges in the Senate without imputing evil motives to other Senators, without castigating the personal integrity of our colleagues? . . . There is enough controversy in the natural course of things . . . without making statements that stir even greater controversy and divisiveness.[1]"
Senator
Robert Byrd made these comments in 1995 in his famous speech
on civility in the Senate. He was responding to Senator Rick
Santorum's accusations that the democrats in the Senate
were lying about a Republican budget proposal. By using
uncivil language, Senator Byrd concluded that the junior
senator had done nothing more than "lower himself in the
eyes of his peers, and of the American people generally, to
the status of a street brawler."
The use of uncivil discourse is not limited to the Senate chamber, however. More and more, we are seeing the use of such language in legal writing. It is not unusual to read variations of the following personal attacks in letters, motions, and briefs: • Opposing counsel is misleading the court by conveniently leaving out the truth.
• Opposing counsel is completely ignorant of the law governing the issues in this case.
• The case law clearly holds that my client's claims are valid and opposing counsel is intentionally ignoring it.
• If opposing counsel would exercise even a modicum of research skill, she would understand that my client is innocent of all wrongdoing.
• Lacking any validity, all of the defendant's arguments can and should be ignored.
• Opposing counsel's argument is...
To continue reading
Request your trial