Even after 17 years in silk (this week!) and 35 since my call to the bar, I am amazed at the linguistic gymnastics some people perform to make a simple point.

When I started in higher education I felt like a duck out of water. After two moots, when my attempts at sounding “barristerial” just sounded daft, I realised that the best way for me to speak confidently was to speak simply.

There is nothing clever about speaking in complex sentences using words which bamboozle many and leave some feeling confused or intimidated. I am convinced that the truly clever and talented use language to include not exclude.

It takes skill and effort to communicate a complex idea in simple language. It is hard work to find the way of building up an idea through short straightforward questions or points; but the thrill of being able to communicate and carry your listener with you far outweighs any burden.

As a matter of client care, straightforward language is vital. It is essential that advice is not misunderstood. Often a sloppy word or a vague concept will give a client a mistaken impression of your view. Such language is often used when the person speaking is not confident about the advice they’re giving or what they’re saying.

If a client makes a significant decision during a trial, barristers are advised to get their client’s endorsement (on the brief…remember when there were paper briefs?). I have seen so many endorsements where the client has signed a paragraph written in a language which is nowhere near that which the client would use or understand. When, as sometimes happens, a client seeks to appeal against an adverse result, they are not shy of complaining that they didn’t understand this decision when they made it.

It is not patronising to avoid jargon or weasel words. If a client uses more complex language naturally then, obviously, the language may become a little more complex but the simplicity of structure should remain.

For what it’s worth, the following is what I do when advising a client who has to make a decision (or who makes a decision) which then requires an endorsement.

I ask the client to listen to the advice. I then ask them if they have any questions, which I try and answer in an honest and straightforward manner. Once this is done, I ask my client to explain the advice back to me, including the decision which they need to make.

I then ask them for their decision. Then (and this is important) I ask them to write out, on my brief (or a piece of paper) and in their own words, what they have decided and why. I ask them to sign and date it on the next line.

If anything needs clarification, correction or addition then I ask them to add that in their own words. I do not dictate what they should write. If they can’t explain what they want to say then I cannot be sure that they understand it.

If they can’t write then I ask them to dictate to me what they wish to say. I write it down word for word. I read it back to them word for word and, if they agree with it, then ask them to sign a paragraph which I draft confirming this. If anyone else is in the room (e.g. solicitor or junior), I ask them to witness this.

Of course, there are additional complications if this is being done through an interpreter; however I am going post separately about advocacy and client care via interpreters

In my experience, people often do not like to say when they do not understand something. It is easier to nod and agree than to admit a weakness. It is an important part of our role to ensure that they fully understand the decisions which they are making in cases affecting them.

I take client care very seriously. For me it’s not just about being polite to them. It is about ensuring that they play the fullest part in the team dealing with their case and that they are empowered to make such decisions as need to be made, in the best possible circumstances to make them.

In advocacy, simplicity is also the key. Using simple language ensures that all those listening understand. In witness handling, it is very difficult for a witness to claim not to understand a simple clear question. If the witness is an expert, it can be a very powerful way to cut thorough jargon and any attempt to confuse or obfuscate.

Judges at all levels find straightforward language effective. The concepts being dealt with may be difficult but there is no need for overly flowery language or lengthy complex sentences. The subordinate clause is often the advocates worst enemy, although it is often treated like a long-lost best friend

In written advocacy, short powerful points can be devastating. As with oral advocacy, they leave no room for ambiguity and make the author appear authoritative and focussed.

A good exercise for assist with this is to write a short paragraph about something which interests you and about which you are knowledgable. Don’t overanalyse it. Just write it. The go back to it and see if you can simplify it without losing its impact. Remove jargon, ambiguity, overly long sentences and waffle. See what you are left with. I bet it’s more powerful without losing its message.