Typography for Lawyers, 2nd Edition (2018)(typographyforlawyers.com)
typographyforlawyers.com
Typography for Lawyers, 2nd Edition (2018)
https://typographyforlawyers.com/
60 comments
I saw him present one time, perhaps it was RacketFest (Racket programming get together with lots of demos). He does a lot of creative project and his Racket books look good. Few things are better than someone having a personal need for something (in his case his own typesetting and publishing tools), builds the tools, then writes books about it.
My favorite thing he’s doing right now is suing GitHub/Microsoft for blatantly violating almost all the licenses on their hosted code for GPT.
https://githubcopilotinvestigation.com/
I’m also an enormous fan of his book, Beautiful Racket. It’s what set me off on the path of being a self-identified Scheme programmer.
https://githubcopilotinvestigation.com/
I’m also an enormous fan of his book, Beautiful Racket. It’s what set me off on the path of being a self-identified Scheme programmer.
My company, Magistrate [0], has elements that are heavily inspired by this book!
Legal documents should be written in plain text, not Microsoft Word. Then, typographical conventions from books like this one can be enforced at the editor level with linters and autoformatters.
Lawyers spend way too much time and money on formatting Microsoft Word documents. How much unnecessary effort could be saved if we had black (the python package) for legal documents? Uncompromising formatting and typography for legal documents would go along way to eliminating the bikeshedding that lawyers do around useless formatting.
If this is the kind of thing that interests you, please reach out!
[0] https://getmagistrate.com/
Legal documents should be written in plain text, not Microsoft Word. Then, typographical conventions from books like this one can be enforced at the editor level with linters and autoformatters.
Lawyers spend way too much time and money on formatting Microsoft Word documents. How much unnecessary effort could be saved if we had black (the python package) for legal documents? Uncompromising formatting and typography for legal documents would go along way to eliminating the bikeshedding that lawyers do around useless formatting.
If this is the kind of thing that interests you, please reach out!
[0] https://getmagistrate.com/
Have you found it to be problematic that some (perhaps many) lawyers like bikeshedding in Word, as it gives them an excuse to pad their billable hours?
It isn’t padding.
It’s judges.
If your lawyer can lose a case over formatting (and they can), your lawyer can get sued for malpractice for screwing up formatting.
Why do judges insist on arcane, high level published documents? Judges benefit from repeat players — the formatting helps them routinize their analysis and spot the careless lawyer, or the one unfamiliar with local law. It’s an effective filter of the arguments.
It’s judges.
If your lawyer can lose a case over formatting (and they can), your lawyer can get sued for malpractice for screwing up formatting.
Why do judges insist on arcane, high level published documents? Judges benefit from repeat players — the formatting helps them routinize their analysis and spot the careless lawyer, or the one unfamiliar with local law. It’s an effective filter of the arguments.
> If your lawyer can lose a case over formatting (and they can)...
It's true that there are certain typographical requirements that must be met in certain court filings, but I have also seen lawyers bikeshed in Word by obsessing over things as menial as left vs. justified text alignment (and then even decide how to rephrase language after changing to justified alignment because they don't like the rivers[1] they are now seeing). Unless such requirements are codified in court rules, then it is not something that would win/lose a case, and it is just a billable-hour timesink.
> Why do judges insist on arcane, high level published documents? Judges benefit from repeat players...
You may be giving them too much credit in their cunning. It's just easier and more efficient to navigate a complex system when we're all operating off of the same framework -- no different than programming. I've worked as a law clerk and attorney, and, yes, judges will have their biases as to which attorneys they are more likely to trust than others, but that occurs through building actual rapport in court, not by following formatting rules.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/River_(typography)
It's true that there are certain typographical requirements that must be met in certain court filings, but I have also seen lawyers bikeshed in Word by obsessing over things as menial as left vs. justified text alignment (and then even decide how to rephrase language after changing to justified alignment because they don't like the rivers[1] they are now seeing). Unless such requirements are codified in court rules, then it is not something that would win/lose a case, and it is just a billable-hour timesink.
> Why do judges insist on arcane, high level published documents? Judges benefit from repeat players...
You may be giving them too much credit in their cunning. It's just easier and more efficient to navigate a complex system when we're all operating off of the same framework -- no different than programming. I've worked as a law clerk and attorney, and, yes, judges will have their biases as to which attorneys they are more likely to trust than others, but that occurs through building actual rapport in court, not by following formatting rules.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/River_(typography)
> It's true that there are certain typographical requirements that must be met in certain court filings, but I have also seen lawyers bikeshed in Word by obsessing over things as menial as left vs. justified text alignment (and then even decide how to rephrase language after changing to justified alignment because they don't like the rivers[1] they are now seeing)
Lawyers fight over this stuff for the same reason programs fight over 4 spaces versus 8 spaces indentation. Judges have to read hundreds if not thousands of pages of briefing a week. Making it a little easier for the judge to follow your point does make a difference.
And will it win or lose cases? Probably not. But how often do appellate briefs argue that the trial judge “overlooked” or “misapprehended” some argument? Stuff gets lost in the shuffle and sometimes not putting the best version of your argument out there leads to bad rulings.
And just as in software, spending a little time up front to learn a standardized style and best practices means that in practice it should be muscle memory and take very little time to churn out briefs that look nice and are easy to read typographically.
(Also, ragged justification is a crutch for people who don’t know how to use soft hyphens. There’s a reason you never see a magazine or book with ragged justification.)
Lawyers fight over this stuff for the same reason programs fight over 4 spaces versus 8 spaces indentation. Judges have to read hundreds if not thousands of pages of briefing a week. Making it a little easier for the judge to follow your point does make a difference.
And will it win or lose cases? Probably not. But how often do appellate briefs argue that the trial judge “overlooked” or “misapprehended” some argument? Stuff gets lost in the shuffle and sometimes not putting the best version of your argument out there leads to bad rulings.
And just as in software, spending a little time up front to learn a standardized style and best practices means that in practice it should be muscle memory and take very little time to churn out briefs that look nice and are easy to read typographically.
(Also, ragged justification is a crutch for people who don’t know how to use soft hyphens. There’s a reason you never see a magazine or book with ragged justification.)
Yes, there's required typography, and there's what you might call "learned" typography. You read Butterick to look more polished, and to show judges you're educated. You fight over fonts because one font might be more legible than another. And you fight over two spaces after a period, or use (cleaned up) to show that you're in the forefront of the practice.
> You may be giving them too much credit in their cunning.
No one has to be especially cunning; it's just a tradition that develops because it works well enough. The American tradition weeds out people who don't have an incentive to help the system be efficient. The English system regulates Barristers even more. If the loss of your license doesn't mean anything (because there won't be a next time for you) then a lot of the rules lose their sting.
Judges do spot carpetbaggers and neophytes through their briefing. You've never seen a pro se brief that used CAPS FOR SHOUTING, or six different fonts? All classic marks of someone outside the normal system.
And even among lawyers, there are tells. In my jurisdiction, we don't use line numbers. A Californian who shows up with line numbers in the briefing is a dead giveaway, and vice versa.
Granted, a handful of times, pro se plaintiffs won at the Supreme Court.[1] But those are exceptions that prove the rule. I don't think it should be this way, but knowing the local judges' typography preferences counts as 'law practice.' For now.
[1] https://abovethelaw.com/2013/07/r-i-p-pro-se-litigants-befor...
> You may be giving them too much credit in their cunning.
No one has to be especially cunning; it's just a tradition that develops because it works well enough. The American tradition weeds out people who don't have an incentive to help the system be efficient. The English system regulates Barristers even more. If the loss of your license doesn't mean anything (because there won't be a next time for you) then a lot of the rules lose their sting.
Judges do spot carpetbaggers and neophytes through their briefing. You've never seen a pro se brief that used CAPS FOR SHOUTING, or six different fonts? All classic marks of someone outside the normal system.
And even among lawyers, there are tells. In my jurisdiction, we don't use line numbers. A Californian who shows up with line numbers in the briefing is a dead giveaway, and vice versa.
Granted, a handful of times, pro se plaintiffs won at the Supreme Court.[1] But those are exceptions that prove the rule. I don't think it should be this way, but knowing the local judges' typography preferences counts as 'law practice.' For now.
[1] https://abovethelaw.com/2013/07/r-i-p-pro-se-litigants-befor...
Only to the extent we market to folks who bill by the hour. But there are lots of people who work with legal documents who don't bill by the hour, and that's the target market for now.
I'm certainly not a fan of Word and only use it when I have no other choice, but while the OP is specifically about typography I wonder about the lack of (that I could see) discussion of revision tracking and other word processor features that seem to be pretty important in a legal context. (And specifically in a legal context where Word seems to be pretty much the standard.)
Word is dominant in the law precisely because of Track Changes. Most sophisticated firms have templates and macros aplenty and so really don't spend all that much more effort on formatting than they would if they used Markdown or something.
Git.
That's such a practical answer for a large firm of lawyers who are used to Word. Hard to believe no one ever thought of it.
I thought you were commenting on the unavailability of version control for plain text, not the psychological inertia of the users.
It would take decades of therapy to wean some lawyers off WordPerfect, let alone Word. But that's more because it's a habit-verging-on-compulsion, not because WYSIWYG software has cornered the market on version control. (Really, was WorldDocs truly any better than git?)
It would be better for everyone if documents were stored in plain text, formatted to the reader's liking by the reader, and edited with format-agnostic tools.
It would take decades of therapy to wean some lawyers off WordPerfect, let alone Word. But that's more because it's a habit-verging-on-compulsion, not because WYSIWYG software has cornered the market on version control. (Really, was WorldDocs truly any better than git?)
It would be better for everyone if documents were stored in plain text, formatted to the reader's liking by the reader, and edited with format-agnostic tools.
[deleted]
> Legal documents should be written in plain text, not Microsoft Word
And programs should be written in Common Lisp, or maybe Rust, but the world is still written in JavaScript.
> Lawyers spend way too much time and money on formatting Microsoft Word documents
?? Lawyers have been using text styles since the WordPerfect days.
As to plain text, as much as I’d love to write everything in TeX, any non-WYSIWYG approach is a non-starter with non-technical users. Stuff has to plug into the existing Word work flow. If you’ve got a better plugin for handling styling in Word I’d love to see it.
And programs should be written in Common Lisp, or maybe Rust, but the world is still written in JavaScript.
> Lawyers spend way too much time and money on formatting Microsoft Word documents
?? Lawyers have been using text styles since the WordPerfect days.
As to plain text, as much as I’d love to write everything in TeX, any non-WYSIWYG approach is a non-starter with non-technical users. Stuff has to plug into the existing Word work flow. If you’ve got a better plugin for handling styling in Word I’d love to see it.
Well, he is writing in Lisp: Racket is a batteries included Scheme and language laboratory (for writing experimental languages). I prefer Common Lisp myself since I have used the language since 1982 but Racket is very nice. I once took a medium length Common Lisp program I wrote (KnowledgeGraph Navigator) and reimplemented it in Racket and that was a pleasant experience.
Agreed. Spend time on substance, not style.
I write documents in markdown and use pandoc with templates to handle styling.
I write documents in markdown and use pandoc with templates to handle styling.
black but for prose would be Vale, https://github.com/errata-ai/vale
I just noticed that it overlaps with „Practical Typography” (https://practicaltypography.com/) to a large extent. So much so that I’d consider them two flavours of the same book, rather than two separate ones.
Also, if you liked the book and feel that you got value out of it, please pay for it – if only to support the experiment in Web self-publishing that it is. I’ve procrastinated it for far too long, but finally bit the bullet, and touched on it here: https://blog.danieljanus.pl/2022/09/24/paying-for-books/
Also, if you liked the book and feel that you got value out of it, please pay for it – if only to support the experiment in Web self-publishing that it is. I’ve procrastinated it for far too long, but finally bit the bullet, and touched on it here: https://blog.danieljanus.pl/2022/09/24/paying-for-books/
The author is also one of the lawyers bringing suit against (Microsoft) Github Copilot.[2]
[2]https://githubcopilotlitigation.com/
[2]https://githubcopilotlitigation.com/
Legal typography is persnickety and its own kind of weird. There are courts in the USA that have very specific rules, including odd paper dimensions and font sizes, that need to be observed when filing with them. To my knowledge these serve mainly as brown M&M clauses to ensure that the lawyers filing in these courts are paying attention.
I found the most interesting section to be on the copyright status of fonts: https://typographyforlawyers.com/the-copyright-status-of-fon...
It describes how there is some debate as to whether or not fonts can be copyrighted, and it ends with:
> Fonts are digital files, and like every other digital file, the internet will happily provide you a free copy. Yet the font business—completely opposite to the music business in this regard—has continued to grow and thrive in the internet era. Therefore, the font business must be based on something closer to the honor system. It remains an unusual counterexample to the idea that digital rights management and litigation are indispensable tools in intellectual-property economies.
It describes how there is some debate as to whether or not fonts can be copyrighted, and it ends with:
> Fonts are digital files, and like every other digital file, the internet will happily provide you a free copy. Yet the font business—completely opposite to the music business in this regard—has continued to grow and thrive in the internet era. Therefore, the font business must be based on something closer to the honor system. It remains an unusual counterexample to the idea that digital rights management and litigation are indispensable tools in intellectual-property economies.
One time I cofounded a legal deposition application that would compile transcripts and exhibits for submissions to the court. We also did auto transcription and time stamping. It was this whole thing and is gone now.
Anyway, The submission requirements vary WILDLY region to region. The typography and margin constraints as well as occasional weird other features like in one county (parish?) in Louisiana it had to be filed bound with a yellow ribbon or something like that.
How much time I spent with weird minutia of legal typesetting, this book seems like a great and interesting read.
Anyway, The submission requirements vary WILDLY region to region. The typography and margin constraints as well as occasional weird other features like in one county (parish?) in Louisiana it had to be filed bound with a yellow ribbon or something like that.
How much time I spent with weird minutia of legal typesetting, this book seems like a great and interesting read.
I've spent years admiring his work as a type designer. It's vexing work to create a serif that's versatile enough to compete with the simplicity and legibility of standard office-type fonts. I think he pulled the rabbit out of the hat with the Equity font. It's intended for lawyers, IANAL, but it's genuinely useful in a much bigger mixture of situations.
Some of this is quite controversial. On some controversial points I think he's wrong, e.g. font size. https://typographyforlawyers.com/point-size.html. The federal appellate courts require at least 14 points, and the Supreme Court requires at least 13 points. Magazines may use smaller fonts, but (1) printing costs matter a lot more in that industry; and (2) the average age of the federal judiciary is a lot older than the average age of most magazine readers.
On other controversial points, I think he's right, e.g. one space between sentences: https://typographyforlawyers.com/one-space-between-sentences.... But I'll probably never be edgy enough to do that.
On other controversial points, I think he's right, e.g. one space between sentences: https://typographyforlawyers.com/one-space-between-sentences.... But I'll probably never be edgy enough to do that.
I’m sure the information in this article is close to canon, as the usual suspects of fonts get mentioned and from the start they seem to be hitting the basics…
However, for a self prophesied typography article on the web when viewed on a mobile device this is humorously unbearable to look at.
However, for a self prophesied typography article on the web when viewed on a mobile device this is humorously unbearable to look at.
This is where I learned some of the fundamentals of Typography. I'm a design engineer by trade.
Highly recommend.
Highly recommend.
Garner has an epic grammar/usage book that I used years ago when I was a copy editor. Anyone who's in the uphill crusade to rid legal text of all-caps is a hero to me [1].
This is an awesome find -- thank you for sharing.
[1] https://typographyforlawyers.com/all-caps.html
This is an awesome find -- thank you for sharing.
[1] https://typographyforlawyers.com/all-caps.html
I cofounded a company years ago with a bunch of people around the core concept of 'Legal is Code'. Had a falling out with my cofounders but the company is still going.
Why do the headings not start with capital letters?
This lawyer says “bleh.”
Two spaces after a sentence make paragraphs easier to parse.
Two spaces after a sentence make paragraphs easier to parse.
From a purely pragmatic point of view, how do you proof to make sure you didn't miss a double space after a paragraph?
IMHO, it's better to do something that can be followed consistently no matter the authoring platform you use. Double spaces are hard to enforce.
IMHO, it's better to do something that can be followed consistently no matter the authoring platform you use. Double spaces are hard to enforce.
Good question. You learn to distinguish 1 and 2. When proofreading a 15 page brief, I might mark 2 or 3 spaces as single that, when I double check in Word, actually are double.
> Two spaces after a sentence make paragraphs easier to parse.
Correct. Most readers of any legal document have zero interest in sipping and savoring each word as if the document were a fine wine. Readers want to learn — as quickly as possible — "what do I need to care about," and then move on to the next item on their to-do lists. Two spaces after a sentence help the reader do that (as do short, single-subject paragraphs).
Correct. Most readers of any legal document have zero interest in sipping and savoring each word as if the document were a fine wine. Readers want to learn — as quickly as possible — "what do I need to care about," and then move on to the next item on their to-do lists. Two spaces after a sentence help the reader do that (as do short, single-subject paragraphs).
sounds like your stuck in the past, two spaces after a paragraph has been a dead convention for years by this point.
Why does that matter? If being stuck in the past, objectively is better than so be it. We should debate whether the idea has merit on its own, not whether society has moved on from it or not. There are a lot of things we've abandoned that were objectively good and replaced with inferior things.
There is no objectivly better here though, its entirely subjective.
The fact that the rest of society has moved on is a fairly clear indication that this subjective premise that 2 spaces is in some way better, shows it clearly does not show enough objective benefit to remain in use or it would be common practice in all of society.
edit: a sibling comment has provided links to a study on this, showing there is not statistically significant improvement in reading speeds reinforcing that this formatting is not objectivly better.
The fact that the rest of society has moved on is a fairly clear indication that this subjective premise that 2 spaces is in some way better, shows it clearly does not show enough objective benefit to remain in use or it would be common practice in all of society.
edit: a sibling comment has provided links to a study on this, showing there is not statistically significant improvement in reading speeds reinforcing that this formatting is not objectivly better.
Yea I have no idea what’s better or not. I’m not arguing about specifics. I don’t know anything about writing style. That wasn’t the point I was trying to get across.
> two spaces after a paragraph has been a dead convention for years by this point.
It's "a dead convention" among people who care about the aesthetic pleasure that they get from the visual beauty of the paragraph and who don't like the "ugliness" of the extra spacing.
People who care more about serving the reader are less dogmatic about two spaces after a sentence, and even prefer it for legal documents, because two spaces makes it easier for a skimmer to jump from sentence to sentence.
It's "a dead convention" among people who care about the aesthetic pleasure that they get from the visual beauty of the paragraph and who don't like the "ugliness" of the extra spacing.
People who care more about serving the reader are less dogmatic about two spaces after a sentence, and even prefer it for legal documents, because two spaces makes it easier for a skimmer to jump from sentence to sentence.
That's a styling issue, not to be solved by typing two spaces unless you're using a typewriter. Just adjust the size of a space to the appropriate size when the text is rendered for the reader (in a word processor for example).
Even though it is a styling issue (I want about 1.5), you still need to distinguish the cases to the renderer. If you want different intersentence spacing than interword spacing, you can't just check for the presence of a period -- the rendered versions of abbreviations like "Mr.", "etc.", etc. need to not have two spaces after them. You either need a whole lot of exceptions built-in (which still fails for sentence that end with abbreviations), or to somehow mark the difference. Multiple spaces is still a nice source convention, because it's minimal and shows up approximately correctly.
(LaTeX does do simple finding of periods to support different interword and intersentence spacing. The recommendation is to use ~ after abbreviations; as a non-breaking space it also keeps Mr.~Whatsisname from appearing on two lines.)
(LaTeX does do simple finding of periods to support different interword and intersentence spacing. The recommendation is to use ~ after abbreviations; as a non-breaking space it also keeps Mr.~Whatsisname from appearing on two lines.)
> That's a styling issue, not to be solved by typing two spaces unless you're using a typewriter. Just adjust the size of a space to the appropriate size when the text is rendered for the reader (in a word processor for example).
Except that advice is way less accessible and has a fairly high cost-benefit ratio:
* Typing two spaces after a sentence: something everyone who can type already understands.
* "[A]djust[ing] the size of a space to the appropriate size when the text is rendered for the reader (in a word processor for example)": something only a tiny fraction know how do do, and even fewer are comfortable with. It's likely some unintuitive UI that is nonstandard, and that has even been changed at points between different versions of the same Word Processor.
Except that advice is way less accessible and has a fairly high cost-benefit ratio:
* Typing two spaces after a sentence: something everyone who can type already understands.
* "[A]djust[ing] the size of a space to the appropriate size when the text is rendered for the reader (in a word processor for example)": something only a tiny fraction know how do do, and even fewer are comfortable with. It's likely some unintuitive UI that is nonstandard, and that has even been changed at points between different versions of the same Word Processor.
> Just adjust the size of a space to the appropriate size
That would work IF the rendering engine knew it was supposed to use a horizontally-larger space at the end of a sentence (comparable to the CSS styling element "padding-right"). A uniformly-larger space would defeat the purpose, namely to make it easier to spot the end of the sentence through the extra space after it.
That would work IF the rendering engine knew it was supposed to use a horizontally-larger space at the end of a sentence (comparable to the CSS styling element "padding-right"). A uniformly-larger space would defeat the purpose, namely to make it easier to spot the end of the sentence through the extra space after it.
LaTeX renders slightly longer space between sentences by default. You need to put "\ " after a dot that is not an end of a sentence to have a normal space there.
Relatively-few lawyers even know what LaTeX is, let alone would be willing to use it for drafting documents for client use.
(At a family reunion a few years ago, I was discussing a book-in-progress with an extended-family member, who at the time was an exec in a very-large Silicon Valley tech company. He was astonished when I mentioned I was using LaTeX, via emacs org-mode, for the manuscript.)
And MS Word is ubiquitously used for contracts and other documents that get circulated for revision, because of Word's redlining- and commenting features. It's a network effect: "Everyone" uses Microsoft Word because "everyone else" uses Microsoft Word.
(At a family reunion a few years ago, I was discussing a book-in-progress with an extended-family member, who at the time was an exec in a very-large Silicon Valley tech company. He was astonished when I mentioned I was using LaTeX, via emacs org-mode, for the manuscript.)
And MS Word is ubiquitously used for contracts and other documents that get circulated for revision, because of Word's redlining- and commenting features. It's a network effect: "Everyone" uses Microsoft Word because "everyone else" uses Microsoft Word.
Fortunately, Word agrees that two spaces is incorrect. https://www.theverge.com/2020/4/24/21234170/microsoft-word-t...
Actually it's a dead convention among all reputable typographers and style guides. Check Chicago Manual of Style. Check MLA. Check APA. Nobody whose business it is to establish the correct number of spaces to put between sentences believes that number to be two.
> Nobody whose business it is to establish the correct number of spaces to put between sentences
What's the metric for establishing what is the "correct" number of spaces? I submit that it's functional, not aesthetic: the speed at which users — i.e., readers — grasp the information being presented. Whether typographers regard a single space as prettier is less important.
What's the metric for establishing what is the "correct" number of spaces? I submit that it's functional, not aesthetic: the speed at which users — i.e., readers — grasp the information being presented. Whether typographers regard a single space as prettier is less important.
If the speed users grasp the information presented is most important, is there any objective measurement that 1 vs 2 spaces actually makes a difference.
I would suggest rather then some arcane spacing convention, the simplicity and clarity of the wording is objectively far more important then any style guide. I would also suggest that this is something the legal profession is generally very bad at with the amount of legal jargon found in most documents produced in the profession.
I would suggest rather then some arcane spacing convention, the simplicity and clarity of the wording is objectively far more important then any style guide. I would also suggest that this is something the legal profession is generally very bad at with the amount of legal jargon found in most documents produced in the profession.
> is there any objective measurement that 1 vs 2 spaces actually makes a difference.
One (small) study said that two spaces increases reading speed by about 3% [0] [1] [2]; I couldn't find any indication whether scanning and skimming speeds were studied.
From an article: "When the double-space was present, their eyes fixated less on the break between sentences and they moved to the next one more quickly. Ultimately, it seemed it was a bit easier for their brains to make sense of when sentences were more clearly broken up." [3]
> the simplicity and clarity of the wording is objectively far more important [than] any style guide. ... this is something the legal profession is generally very bad at with the amount of legal jargon found in most documents produced in the profession.
Agreed! I teach advanced contract drafting to third-year law students; I stress two principal rules: (A) Short, Single-Subject Paragraphs — don't be a L.O.A.D. [Lazy Or Arrogant Drafter] [4], and (B) BLUF - Bottom Line Up Front [5]. Following those two rules will produce the biggest bang for the buck in terms of improved readability.
[0] https://link.springer.com/epdf/10.3758/s13414-018-1527-6?sha...
[1] https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/05/two-spac...
[2] https://medicalxpress.com/news/2018-05-space-period-sentence...
[3] https://www.discovermagazine.com/mind/scientists-two-spaces-...
[4] https://toedtclassnotes.site44.com/Notes-on-Contract-Draftin...
[5] https://toedtclassnotes.site44.com/Notes-on-Contract-Draftin...
One (small) study said that two spaces increases reading speed by about 3% [0] [1] [2]; I couldn't find any indication whether scanning and skimming speeds were studied.
From an article: "When the double-space was present, their eyes fixated less on the break between sentences and they moved to the next one more quickly. Ultimately, it seemed it was a bit easier for their brains to make sense of when sentences were more clearly broken up." [3]
> the simplicity and clarity of the wording is objectively far more important [than] any style guide. ... this is something the legal profession is generally very bad at with the amount of legal jargon found in most documents produced in the profession.
Agreed! I teach advanced contract drafting to third-year law students; I stress two principal rules: (A) Short, Single-Subject Paragraphs — don't be a L.O.A.D. [Lazy Or Arrogant Drafter] [4], and (B) BLUF - Bottom Line Up Front [5]. Following those two rules will produce the biggest bang for the buck in terms of improved readability.
[0] https://link.springer.com/epdf/10.3758/s13414-018-1527-6?sha...
[1] https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/05/two-spac...
[2] https://medicalxpress.com/news/2018-05-space-period-sentence...
[3] https://www.discovermagazine.com/mind/scientists-two-spaces-...
[4] https://toedtclassnotes.site44.com/Notes-on-Contract-Draftin...
[5] https://toedtclassnotes.site44.com/Notes-on-Contract-Draftin...
the study provides an interesting read, thanks for the link.
It is interesting when you look at the reading results, in particular the only significant difference in reading speed was for people that typed using 2 spaces at the end of a sentence, when they also were reading a document formatted that way. (I note that the other 3 articles cite back to the same source study)
This would appear to show that considering most people outside the legal profession do not follow that convention, that there is no real benefit, particularly when even this improvement was not considered statistically significant in the study.
I did a quick skim of the course notes, and I can defiantly agree with the principals your teaching. I hope your students appreciate just how important those points are in all there written communication.
It is interesting when you look at the reading results, in particular the only significant difference in reading speed was for people that typed using 2 spaces at the end of a sentence, when they also were reading a document formatted that way. (I note that the other 3 articles cite back to the same source study)
This would appear to show that considering most people outside the legal profession do not follow that convention, that there is no real benefit, particularly when even this improvement was not considered statistically significant in the study.
I did a quick skim of the course notes, and I can defiantly agree with the principals your teaching. I hope your students appreciate just how important those points are in all there written communication.
The unofficial standard style guide for the American legal profession is the Bluebook.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bluebook
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bluebook
The Bluebook specifically says to defer to the Chicago Manual of Style where the Bluebook does not prescribe a rule.
Chicago requires 1 space.
Also, the Bluebook is at most followed only in spirit, more commonly in the breach. Most of it is specifically for "scholarly" articles, not practitioners' documents. Smallcaps is an important part of following Bluebook for scholarship! There is a slim section on how to translate requirements to briefs, but it is underspecified so lawyers just kind of muddle along. All while insisting they follow it to the letter. They don't.
Chicago requires 1 space.
Also, the Bluebook is at most followed only in spirit, more commonly in the breach. Most of it is specifically for "scholarly" articles, not practitioners' documents. Smallcaps is an important part of following Bluebook for scholarship! There is a slim section on how to translate requirements to briefs, but it is underspecified so lawyers just kind of muddle along. All while insisting they follow it to the letter. They don't.
Well then, I guess I'm eating crow. Thank you for the summary.
I just searched the online Bluebook and found nothing about spaces after the end of a sentence.
Personally, I'm not familiar with any double-space rule. I simply mentioned the Bluebook in response to the above poster's misleading argument that a legal convention is "dead" on the basis of style guides that aren't generally relevant to lawyers.
It's clearly not a dead convention in the legal sector, given that you have heard from numerous lawyers who use it. I am one such lawyer - it is part of my firm's style guide.
As an ex-lawyer turned coder and one-time type setter for a school paper, I can only marvel at his accomplishments.