Taking out the heat - key points to avoid in legal letter writing
During my early legal days, I became embroiled in increasingly snarky correspondence with a respected firm of solicitors. They knew I wasn't a qualified lawyer at that stage and, I felt, they had taken several opportunities in correspondence to let me know they were dealing with an idiot - and, by God, I wasn't going to let them get away with it...
January 11, 2012 at 05:06 AM
6 minute read
During my early legal days, I became embroiled in increasingly snarky correspondence with a respected firm of solicitors. They knew I wasn't a qualified lawyer at that stage and, I felt, they had taken several opportunities in correspondence to let me know they were dealing with an idiot – and, by God, I wasn't going to let them get away with it.
As we prepared for court, my supervisor instructed a very experienced and wise barrister. He took us through the strengths and weaknesses of our case. He told us he thought our analysis was right and that we had good prospects of success.
He did speak to me privately though, and I've tried to live by his words ever since.
He said: "Take the heat out of the correspondence. The court will not be impressed."
It didn't matter who started it. My job was to worry about my side of the street.
Since then, I've had a number of highly emotive letters land on my desk, from solicitors and lay-people alike – and it's apparent these people didn't get the 'cool it' memo.
Below are some of the things I've observed from these interactions and thought would be useful to pass on about letter writing:
- Do not accuse people of crimes. It only winds them up.
You really don't want to be defending a claim for defamation either.
The better way may be to write to your landlord saying you are concerned that your respective accounts do not tally and that you need a breakdown of how he has calculated your arrears so you can check if his records are correct – rather than accusing him of "stealing" or "fraud".
Are you so convinced a crime has been committed that you've called the police? Well then, leave it out of your letter.
- Don't threaten people. It only makes them want to call your bluff.
Think about it. You'll only feel sheepish if they tell you to, "go ahead and take this to the Supreme Court/European Court of Human Rights/Anne Robinson".
It is always better to be seen as the reasonable and slightly bemused guy who's trying to sort this problem out rather than ranty man who people can't have a conversation with without police intervention.
Maybe Anne Robinson will be the final arbiter of your complaint. At least you will be able to show her that you've tried to do everything possible to resolve it before having to involve her.
- Don't use multiple fonts and font sizes. AND FOR CRYING OUT LOUD, DON'T USE BLOCK CAPS!!!
The only thing it will achieve is the instant loss of your credibility. Reasonable people do not shout. Block caps are considered shouting. I avoid them. I also avoid exclamation points for similar reasons. Multiple fonts and fonts sizes in letters makes me wonder if the writer has other issues that have nothing to do with me. It's not going to help your case, so leave it out.
Now, here's a double-down don't:
- THIS CLAIM IS FRIVOLOUS, VEXATIOUS AND WHOLLY MISCONCEIVED!!!! doesn't scare anybody and is seen as more bluffing.
You may be justifiably angry with the way you're being treated, but block caps, exclamation points and over-emotive words are not going to help your case.
And speaking of over-emotive words…
- Some lawyers like to give with one hand, and take with the other.
And they love the word 'disingenuous'.
It does not matter if you politely open your letter with: "Thank you for your letter of 6 January", if you go on to say, "…the contents of which are wholly disingenuous and do you no credit" – you're still calling someone a liar.
I say take a deep breath, recognise this as 'heat' and think very carefully about whether pre-litigation point-scoring is going to help you or your client be attractive to the court.
Believe me, there is nothing more tedious than reading an exchange of 'handbags at dawn' correspondence that doesn't take the case anywhere. The judge will want to shoot both of you.
- You can stand your ground and be dispassionate at the same time.
Before you write, remember the point of these tips is to get the court to focus on the merits of the case – and not any personality flaws – at least not any of yours.
The other point is it's far less expensive (financially and emotionally) for people to try to resolve disputes themselves without having to go to court.
Some cases require judicial intervention. Certainly in a domestic violence or homelessness situation, there may be no point in continuing to try to agree or reason and the police and/or a judge may need to intervene right away.
The cases I'm talking about are contract disputes, snails in ginger beer and many problems with councils and landlords.
I hope the above examples illustrate the pillars of good letter writing:
Be polite.
Be dispassionate.
Focus on the issue and not your emotion about the issue or the person.
If you can do this, you're more likely to be able to resolve your dispute without having to go to court. And if you have to go to court and do have to get a judge to resolve the problem, your evidence (and that's what these letters are) is clear, precise and on point. As a bonus, you get to claim the high ground and have a better chance of your case really being heard.
Kristin Heimark is a solicitor advocate, consultant and blogger. Click here to visit Kristin's blog and click here to follow her on Twitter.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllLatham's magic circle strikes, pay rises and EY's legal takeover: the best of Legal Week over the last few weeks
3 minute readJob losses, soaring partner profits and Freshfields exits - the best of Legal Week over the past two weeks
3 minute readMagic circle PEP hikes, the associate pay conundrum and more #MeToo - the best of Legal Week last week
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250