The post before this one (here) is my critique of ISO 24495-2:2025 (Plain language — Part 2: Legal communication), published by ISO (the International Organization for Standardization). In that post, I say the writing in ISO 24495-2 is clumsy, and I include a link to a document with some sentences from ISO 24495-2 and how I would rewrite them. In … Read More
In August 2025, ISO (the International Organization for Standardization) published ISO 24495-2:2025 (Plain language — Part 2: Legal communication). Here’s how ISO describes ISO 24495-2: This document deals with legal communication, and it builds on the foundation for plain language in ISO 24495-1. It establishes guidelines and techniques to help authors make sure that readers can readily understand legal communication … Read More
It might be time to try in-person public Drafting Clearer Contracts presentations using an innovative model that worked well before the pandemic. Used to do in-person public Drafting Clearer Contracts presentations in partnership with some other organization. My partners arranged premises (usually at a hotel) and were responsible for marketing and sales. I got a cut of the proceeds. Because … Read More
When? I’ve scheduled the first two series of Drafting Clearer Contracts: Masterclass for 2026. One begins on Wednesday, 21 January 2026, at 11:00 a.m. ET; the second begins on Tuesday, 17 March 2026, at noon ET. And I’ve scheduled one Drafting Clearer Contracts presentation, on 8 and 9 April 2026, starting at 11:00 a.m. ET. More of both kinds of … Read More
Sporadically, I’m hired to help people in a fight over confusing contract language. That kind of work isn’t my bread and butter, but I should do a lot more of it. Many courts are bad at making sense of confusing contract language. (For two of many examples, see this 2015 article and this 2020 blog post.) And so are many … Read More
I’ve explained elsewhere that it’s inane to use an initial capital A in a contract’s references to that contract (as in this Agreement). Go here for my 2018 blog post on; for the definitive take, see MSCD. But I’ve been aware for a while that the urge to inflict an unnecessary initial capital on stuff that’s … IMPORTANT occurs outside … Read More
One of the joys of scholarship is that it offers plenty of opportunity for you to be a doofus. I’ve taken advantage of that over the years. It goes with the territory: if your scholarship is worth anything, it will venture into the unknown (unknown to you, at least), and the unknown is where you stumble. My most recent opportunity … Read More
File this under “Better late than never.” Way late. The second printing of A Manual of Style for Contract Drafting came out in spring 2024. If you have a copy of the first printing, you might want to note in it changes I made to the second printing. Here they are: As changes go, I think we can say they’re … Read More
Yesterday I received from longtime reader Chris Lemens an email complaining about someone opting for indemnify, hold harmless, and exonerate. It’s bad enough to have hold harmless, not to mention defend—why add exonerate! I looked into indemnify plus exonerate, and yes, it’s a thing: But inspired by Chris, I looked for other gratuitous additions to indemnify, and I found protect: … Read More
[Revised on 11 September 2025 to change the title and the text. The original title was If AI Gets One Thing Wrong, It Might Get Other Stuff Wrong.] Recently I saw on LinkedIn, in this post by Kara Dowdall, the following assessment of a contract: This assessment was generated by artificial intelligence. Or more specifically, by Claude, from Anthropic. I … Read More
