Why people can't understand how lawyers write

Some people say lawyers' writings are incomprehensible. Personally, I disagree. But then I read this book entitled Writing to Win - The Legal Writer by Steven D. Stark. In the Introduction of his book, Mr. Stark cited Robert D. White's Trials and Tribulations: Appealing Legal Humor, in identifying ten unfortunate characteristics of legal writing:

"1. Never use one word where ten will do.

2. Never use a small word where a big one will suffice.

3. Never use a simple statement where it appears that one of substantially greater complexity will achieve comparable goals.

4. Never use English where Latin, mutatis mutandis, will do.

5. Qualify virtually everything.

6. Do not be embarrassed about repeating yourself. Do not be embarrassed about repeating yourself.

7. Worry about the difference between 'which' and 'that'.

8. In pleadings and briefs, that which is defensible should be stated. That which is indefensible but you wish were true should be merely suggested.

9. Never refer to your opponent's 'argument'; he only makes 'assertions,' and his assertions are always 'bald.'

10. If a layperson can read a document from beginning to end without falling asleep, it needs work."

Then I started to doubt my earlier opinion of how lawyers write. And after going through Mr. Stark's book, my legal writing greatly improved (at least that's what my wife told me). Go figure.