"Don't Sweat the Small Stuff . . . and It's All Small Stuff: Simple Ways to Keep the Little Things from Taking Over Your Life" was Richard Carlson's blockbuster self-help guide from 1997 that "shows you how to put challenges in perspective, reduce stress and anxiety through small daily changes, and find the path to achieving your goals." Generally, not sweating the small stuff is sage advice. Ill-reasoned comments online or rude drivers on the road shouldn't send us into a tailspin. However, in some areas, "sweating the small stuff" is a necessity. Proofreading a legal text for errors in grammar, punctuation, and continuity may seem tedious, but it cannot be overlooked or rushed. Legal writing is extremely goal oriented. Lawyers and students therefore rightly focus on ensuring that the "big stuff" is in order:
Are my arguments logical, coherent, and persuasive?
Are my facts accurate, thorough, and compelling?
Are my authorities sufficient, complete, and relevant?
Flaws in any of these elements may be fatal to a brief, thesis, or presentation. However, crafting a brilliant argument, only to present it in a sloppy package is an act of self-sabotage. Judge Judith S. Kaye succinctly explained the value of "sweating the small stuff" by asking "Why risk losing a judge's confidence, or patience, on account of mechanical matters that are wholly within your control?" Below are two categories of these mechanical matters you can control through careful attention to detail to avoid presenting a "gift to the opposition."
First, the mandatory rules of grammar and punctuation must be meticulously met. Here the value of proofreading cannot be overstated. Of course, my first piece of advice is to hire Legal-ease for these matters. Failing that (unadvisable), find a reliable source to consult for questions of grammar and punctuation. My favorite is the Purdue Online Writing Lab (OWL). The OWL is a searchable online writing guide that covers all matters of grammar and punctuation with easy-to-follow rules, as well as explanations and examples. As a geriatric millennial, I enjoy having both an online and hardcopy source to consult, so I additionally always keep a copy of Diana Hacker's "A Writer's Reference" on hand. Once you have found a reliable source, create a proofreading checklist to ensure you know the types of errors to look for while revising. Both the OWL and Columbia Law School provide helpful examples.
The wee comma is one of the most bemoaned punctuations in this “small stuff” category. The consternation around this tiny menace is created by the extensive, and sometimes optional, rules and their exceptions. A sentence missing a period at the end would leave no doubt that it is incorrect, while an omitted or extra comma may go unnoticed. Nevertheless, correctly and confidently using commas is important to avoid any ambiguities or expensive misunderstandings, and to erase any doubt that your comma placement is the result of error or guess-work, both landing your writing in the “sloppy” category. The OWL provides “Quick Rules for Commas,” a list of 11 basic rules to help determine whether a comma is necessary or incorrect. Here, using a proofreading checklist will also help to identify personal problem spots. For example, when proofreading for a German-speaking client, I always pay special attention to commas before relative clauses. (Correct in German: Sie argumentierte, dass der Beklagte fahrlässig gehandelt habe. / Incorrect in English: She argued, that the defendant was negligent.)
While some comma rules are absolute, others are discretionary (e.g., the serial comma or the use of a comma to avoid confusion). This leads to the second big category of "small stuff" - consistency. In cases where more than one thing can be right, select your preference and make sure you are consistent throughout the text. These choices include using British or American spelling, placing punctuation inside or outside quotation marks, and uniformly formatting all headings. Consistency also requires strict adherence to the rules of style, formatting, and citation laid out by the relevant court, publisher, or professor. When edited thoroughly, perfect consistency in a document will go unnoticed. On the other hand, inconsistencies may provide for a moment's distraction. Just a moment - but it may be enough for the reader to become distracted or lose their train of thought. Why invite a judge, client, or professor to mull over anything other than your dazzling argument?
The use a serial comma, sometimes called an Oxford comma, is optional and hotly-debated. It is the comma separating the penultimate and final items in a list. I personally use Oxford commas for two reasons - clarity and consistency. If it changes the meaning in some places and is warranted, I support using it in every instance in a text to maintain consistency. In 2018, an overtime dispute gained international attention and set the grammar world abuzz when the lack of a serial comma cost a Maine dairy company $5 million. The case drives home (pun absolutely intended) the potential outsized impact of "small stuff." From a BBC report:
Three lorry drivers for Oakhurst Dairy claimed that they were owed years of unpaid overtime wages, all because of the way commas were used in legislation governing overtime payments.
The state’s laws declared that overtime wasn’t due for workers involved in “the canning, processing, preserving, freezing, drying, marketing, storing, packing for shipment or distribution of: 1) agricultural produce; 2) meat and fish products; and 3) perishable foods”.
The drivers managed to successfully argue that because there was no comma after “shipment” and before “or distribution”, they were owed overtime pay. If a comma had been there, the law would have explicitly ruled out those who distribute perishable foods.
The case serves as a salient reminder that tiny omissions or oversights are not just a matter of aesthetics or pedantry. In law, precision is king. Effective writing can only exist together with rigorous attention to detail and fastidious proofreading.
Comentarios