Rating: 
Summary: Common sense for people who need it.
Review: The point of Garner's book is to write for the reader. This book would be helpful to any lawyer, if only because it forces us to think about how and why we are writing. Too often, writers treat style manuals as if they were infallible--written on stone tablets by a divine author. Garner's book is not perfect and cannot be applied with a thoughtless rigor. As an appellate lawyer, I generally try to follow Garner's style, but sometimes it doesn't fit. The corporate lawyer who complained about the book did not read it closely enough. Garner opposes thoughtless attachment to legalese, but he acknowledges that sometimes legal writers have to use terms of art. He also urges writers to be concise. I don't know where the corporate lawyer got the idea that Garner advocates "two pages of easily accessible prose over two sentences of conventional drafting," but it is not from this book. Accept or reject Garner's advice as you wish, but thinking about clear writing will make you a better lawyer. Most of what Garner writes is common sense, but it's common sense legal writers often lack.
Rating:
Summary: Plain English is Shorter, More Precise.
Review: The problem with the 1-star review is that it has the problem completely reversed. The reviewer suggests that traditional legal drafting is *shorter* than the plain english drafting that Garner proposes. He need only read Garner's books to learn that traditional drafting is *significantly* longer and more difficult to read than plain English. Furthermore, the reviewer needs to realize that Garner is not advocating that all legal writing be poetry. First and foremost, he advocates for clarity and precision. If the writer can also make it interesting to read (or even a joy to read), then more power to the writer. If you're a lawyer and hate seeing "WHEREAS" before each recital and prefer a simple sentence, Garner is the man for you.
Rating: 
Summary: Unrealistic Advice for Transactional Drafting
Review: While the book contains some good advice for beginners, those of us who draft agreements should beware of the dangers of taking Mr. Garner's advice too seriously. Of course legal drafting can be improved, but there are limits, given that ease of understanding isn't the only goal in legal drafting. In short, he lets his stylistic preferences override the need for brevity, clarity and precision, and has taken his case too far. Where a choice has to be made, I vote for conventional legal drafting. Many of his recommendations do not work in the country's most prestigious law firms. Mr. Garner advises that lawyers should draft in plain English, not for a mythical judge who might be called upon to interpret a provision in the worst-case scenario of litigation. While I am all for clarity, legal draftsmen would be well advised to consider the malpractice hazards of not drafting for a judge. By all means, make your drafting unambiguous and eschew sloppy and overly-complicated formulations, but keep in mind that if there is a question of interpretation, it will be a judge or arbitrator with legal training who will have to resolve it and, whether the judge or arbitrator likes it or not, he or she knows what to do with conventional legal drafting. And I don't seriously believe that a judge would prefer to read three pages of easily accessible prose over two sentences of conventional drafting that, given his or her legal training and experience, can be absorbed in a few seconds. Put simply, you'd rather have a patent protect your client than have it be understood by a layman. Similarly, you'd rather have to explain a contractual provision to a client than not have it give her the legal protection she has hired you help provide. Would Mr. Garner advise that mathematicians frame their equations in prose, simply because this makes their conclusions more accessible to the nonmathematician? Or that advertisements be written in full sentences? For example, Mr. Garner begins the book by criticizing the formulation "Notwithstanding anything to the contrary." Although it lacks iambic pentameter, there can be little question of its intent: what follows overrides any conflicting provisions, and you, Mr. Judge, should consider this when one party argues that another provision should prevail. And what's wrong with a well-drafted proviso? Mr. Garner also ignores the choice between the precision offered by good, but conventional, legal drafting, and the difficulty of achieving that same precision when drafting in plain English. Given the choice, I'd prefer to draft a short, precise, clear sentence than two pages of nattily formatted plain English. At my hourly rates, I suspect my clients would prefer to pay for the former, too. Finally, Mr. Garner ignores the reality of most legal drafting: it begins with precedent that doesn't conform to his views. Again, given the high cost of quality legal work, it might be worth tinkering with language to make it clearer, but it would prohibitively expensive to completely redraft from scratch a complicated transaction document in the manner he suggests. Perhaps the most telling point: the book jacket has no endorsements from anyone at a prestigious law school or law firm. A noble cause, but Mr. Garner writes like an academic without real-world experience.
Rating:
Summary: It's superb.
Review: Yikes! There is no longer anywhere to hide, and there are no more excuses. This book shows you how to drop the jargon, the gobbledygook, the archaisms, and the fluff. So your writing is exposed. Now you must think--and write--clearly, and Legal Writing in Plain English will help. Lawyers and law students have needed this book for a long time. It's superb. (From back cover.)
| 
