Legal English Newsletter IV

Welcome to the fourth edition of my Legal English Newsletter, which contains tips on legal English usage and appears on a quarterly basis.

Drafting tip: using the comma (,)

The correct use of the comma is possibly not the most fascinating topic with which to greet 2016, but getting it right is more important and difficult than one might think. The importance comes from the fact that in certain circumstances its use can entirely alter the meaning of a sentence. For instance:

This lawyer, said the judge, is a fool.

This lawyer said the judge is a fool.

The difficulty comes from the fact that many European languages use the comma in almost but not exactly the same way from the way it is used in English. Because the usage differences are small, they are sometimes ignored when transferring from one language to another. So, for example, while in Finnish one can write h?n sanoi, ett?, in English one should write (s)he said that – it is incorrect to place a comma automatically before that.

It is possible to identify eight main situations in which commas should be used.

1) To separate items in a list of more than two items. For example, ‘cars, trucks, vans, and tractors’. In this sentence, there is a comma after vans to show that the list contains four separate categories of items – cars, trucks, vans, tractors – and that vans and tractors do not make up a single category.

2) To separate coordinated main clauses. For example, ‘Cars should park here, and trucks should continue straight on’. In this sentence, the comma after here marks the separation between the different clauses in the sentence.

3) To mark the beginning and end of a sub-clause in a sentence. For example, ‘James, who is a corporate lawyer, led the seminar.’

Here, the commas after James and lawyer allow the writer to indicate to the reader in passing that James is a corporate lawyer, while at the same time placing the main emphasis on the fact that James led the seminar.

4) After certain kinds of introductory clause. For example, ‘Having finished my work, I left the office.’

5) After certain kinds of introductory words. When a sentence begins with a word which does not form part of the clause which follows it, a comma usually appears after this word. These are usually words – or combinations of two or three words – inserted by the author to indicate to the reader how the rest of the sentence is to be understood and how it relates to the previous sentence. Examples include however, therefore, of course, and nevertheless.

6) To separate a phrase or sub-clause from the main clause in order to avoid misunderstanding. For example:

I did not go to Paris yesterday, because the meeting was cancelled.

Here, the comma after yesterday makes it clear that the writer did not go to Paris, and the reason he or she did not go to Paris was that the meeting was cancelled. If the comma were to be removed, the sentence would be ambiguous – it would give the impression that the writer did go to Paris but that the reason for going to Paris was not that the meeting was cancelled:

I did not go to Paris yesterday because the meeting was cancelled. I went because I had urgent shopping to do!

7) Following words which introduce direct speech (e.g. said). For example, ‘He said, “my lawyer is a genius!”’

8) Between adjectives which each qualify a noun in the same way. For example, ‘a small, dark room’. Here, a comma is placed after small.

However, where the adjectives qualify the noun in different ways, or when one adjective qualifies another, no comma is used. For example, ‘a distinguished international lawyer’ or ‘a shiny blue suit’.

Commas are softer in effect than full stops and semi-colons, and are therefore unsuitable for long lists. They should not be used simply as an alternative to using short sentences or if there is any risk of ambiguity.

Language tip: according to / in accordance with

These very similar phrases appear with almost unbelievable frequency in legal texts, and in such a wide variety of contexts that it is very hard to tell them apart. However, they do have slightly different meanings – and sometimes these differences are of crucial importance.

In a nutshell, ‘in accordance with’ is used to indicate that the matter referred to has mandatory effect. It means roughly the same as ‘in compliance with’. For instance:

The work must be carried out in accordance with the client’s specific instructions.

Whereas ‘according to’ generally indicates reportage. It tells the reader that the matter referred to is derived or reported from a certain source. For instance:

According to my lawyer, I could claim substantial damages for this infringement.

In case this explanation is not entirely clear, consider the following sentences:

According to the weather forecast it will rain tomorrow.
OR
In accordance with the weather forecast it will rain tomorrow.

The first of these sentences is correct – it is reportage that simply tells us what the weather forecast said. But the second – ‘in accordance with the weather forecast’ – indicates that the weather forecast actually governs the weather, which is clearly not the case.

Confusion may arise in situations in which both expressions can be used, but with different emphasis. Compare:

Rent shall be paid in accordance with paragraph 7 of the lease agreement.
and
Rent shall be paid according to paragraph 7 of the lease agreement.

The difference between these sentences is that the first tells us that paragraph 7 governs the way in which rent is paid, while the second tells us where to find the obligation to pay rent (i.e. in paragraph 7).

Did you know?

The London Beer Flood happened on 17 October 1814 in London, when a huge brewery vat containing over 610,000 litres ruptured, causing other vats in the same building to break. As a result, almost 1.5 million litres of beer burst out of the brewery, located on the Tottenham Court Road, and poured into the streets. The flood of beer destroyed two homes and broke the wall of a pub. Because the brewery was located in a poor district where families lived in cramped conditions in basements which were quickly filled with the beer, eight people drowned in the flood.

The brewery was taken to court, but the judge and jury decided the disaster was an Act of God and nobody was held responsible.

News and further reading

I have provided legal editing services since 2002, with particular focus on texts relating to European law, and have edited several published works and numerous legal articles. With a view to deepening my expertise in this area, I am currently studying for the Postgraduate Diploma in European Union Law run by King’s College London. If you require editing services, please send your text to me at [email protected].

I plan to hold a two-day seminar on legal English in Helsinki later in the year. Further details will follow in the next newsletter and will be published on my website at https://www.ruperthaigh.com/index.php?id=14.

The next edition of this newsletter will appear in March. In the meantime questions and feedback can be emailed to me at [email protected].

I would like to take this opportunity to wish anyone who has managed to read all the way to the bottom of this piece a successful, enjoyable and grammatically correct 2016!

Rupert Haigh