Should I use a template to create a legal document?

Should I use a template to create a legal document?

By Denice Fraser, Senior Marketing Executive

Everyone’s document requirements differ and there may be particular times when you, or someone you know considers using a template to create a legal document.

   

In essence, a template is a generic example - a DIY process, which relies heavily on the level of expertise and knowledge of the person using it.
 

You can obtain free legal document templates online for a number of document types. The problem with free legal document templates is that:

• they may not be regularly updated for compliance, with current Commonwealth, state or territory legislation;
• they may not be comprehensive;
• they may not cover every circumstance or situation – meaning you have an incomplete document (resulting in the need to draft sections yourself);
• they can leave you ill at ease (not knowing if your document is compliant);
• you can experience some pain populating the template ‘blanks’ without guidance; and
• the chances of receiving support to complete the template are slim.

What happens if you need assistance or advice? You may need to start again after gathering new information, lose a valued client, or be faced with a non-compliance penalty far exceeding the cost of the document you initially tried to avoid.

Through Cleardocs, you receive more than a template.  Cleardocs is an automated system that guides you through an interface and enters your answers into a master document, expertly drafted and maintained by top 20 law firm, Maddocks.

Cleardocs easy to use question interface guides you step by step, with help text, free helpdesk support and access to Maddocks. 

You can sample some of our documents here. You will need to register as a Cleardocs user in order to view these documents.  Registration to Cleardocs is free. These sample documents are produced from our master documents — which are like legal document templates. 

+Cleardocs Thomson Reuters

US plain-language awards dinner

Christopher Balmford, MD

The second-ever US plain-language Awards were presented by the Center for Plain Language at the end of April. For the second year, I had the honour, and the fun, of being the MC (or “emcee”) for the event.

The Awards
At the Awards dinner, in the National Press Club in Washington D.C, the Center announced 3 categories of winners:

1.  the ClearMark Awards — for documents that are stunningly, refreshingly clear. This year, there were 28 finalists from 8 categories.

2.  the WonderMark Awards — for documents that are hard to understand. The reason these awards are named the “WonderMark”, is that the documents make you think “I wonder what it means . . . I wonder who wrote it . . . I wonder what they were doing when they wrote it . . . I wonder what they thought they were doing when they wrote it . . . I wonder what they had for breakfast the day they wrote it; and

3. the TurnAround Award — for an organisation that, after “winning” a WonderMark Award one year, successfully rewrites the relevant communication in plain language.

Theme
Last year the theme for the Awards was Demand to Understand. This year the theme was, Words Impact Lives.

Guest speaker
The guest speaker was Kristi Kaeppline a Senior Advisor in the US Security Exchange Commission’s Division of Risk, Strategy, and Financial Innovation. Kristi spoke:

• about the aspects of plain language which resonate, and — sadly — those that fail to resonate, with executives and bureaucrats; and
• how this affects their decision-making on plain-language issues.

Kristi had a good line. She said, we need to make ”plain language the rule rather than the exception”. That phrase is my nomination for the theme for the Center’s Awards next year.

WonderMark winners
The WonderMark Grand Prize — for the most confused, convoluted, inarticulate, frustrating, baffling, elusive, and mind-bogglingly unhelpful of the entries the Center received — went to Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Maryland, for its Care First Explanation of Benefits.

You can see the “winning” document here.

One of the judges commented:

"The design is repulsive, the organization atrocious, and most importantly, it's impossible to understand what the insurance company is explaining. If executives were required to read their company documents, we might not have documents as terrible as these."

Enough said.

One of the winners of a WonderMark Award was a ballot paper produced by the New Jersey County of Gloucester.

The ballot contains a public question for citizens to vote on about an amendment to the New Jersey Constitution. The question is difficult to understand. So, to make things clear, the ballot includes an "interpretive statement". Sadly, that supposedly clear interpretative statement is no help at all.

Here is a copy of the document:



The thing is, there is no need for the question to be so awkward — after all, the substance of the amendment is pretty straight-forward. In a sane world, the question on the ballot would be clear. In turn:

• there would be no need for the interpretative statement — so the duplicated efforts of writers, and of readers, would be saved;
• citizens would be better informed and able to make better decisions; and
• the community’s respect for our democratic system would be enhanced.

All thanks to 20 minutes effort to improve a few lines of text.

Grand Prize ClearMark
The 2011 Grand Mark ClearMark Award went to the Internal Revenue Service for 2 rewritten forms.

You can see the winning documents here.

The judges commented that the highlights of the IRS’s project were:

• Before rewriting anything, the team spent time analysing the existing document AND the existing environment.
• The project involved a systemic effort that looked at processes as well as the documents.
• The team was able to combine documents and eliminate documents — so as to reduce and rationalize the overall amount of information.
• The team tested the draft rewrites on a sample audience.

In light of those comments, it’s understandable why the project produced such an outstanding document. Indeed, anyone seeking to rewrite a document should be thinking about making sure their project involves similar activities.

TurnAround Award winner
The Center’s first-ever TurnAround Award was presented to Chase for its card member agreement. In 2010, the original agreement earned a WonderMark Award.  Chase took the award seriously, and revised the agreement so that it presented information to credit card holders in a clear, concise format.

You can see the “before” and “after” of the Chase document here.

All power to those WonderMark winners who receive the Award in the spirit with which it is intended, and who go on to turn their communications around.

Next plain-language conference
By the way, the next plain-language conference is on in Stockholm in June 2011, you can read about it here.

Cleardocs and plain language
For information about Cleardocs and plain language, see our site here.

Clarity’s Plain Language Conference October 2010

Christopher Balmford MD

Plain-language conferences are uplifting and energising events.
Clarity’s conference is on in Lisbon, Portugal in October 2010. For all sessions, there will be simultaneous translation between English and Portuguese.
Have a look at the program on the conference website here: www.clarity2010.com/home_en.html
Do come along. Also please encourage others to attend.
Plain-language advocates and practitioners often find conferences are the perfect way:

• to be reminded why they do the work they do;
• to learn from others;
• to further develop their ideas in discussions between the sessions; and
• to connect — or reconnect — with others who share their purpose.

Wherever your energy is at, if you’re interested in plain-language and clear communication, then Clarity’s conference always gives you a lift.
Here’s the site: www.clarity2010.com/home_en.html
Upwards & onwards
Christopher Balmford, President of Clarity, & MD of Cleardocs

US plain-language Awards dinner — Cleardocs part of the show

Christopher Balmford, MD

Plain language took a big step forward in the United States of America when the Center for Plain Language held its first ever ClearMark Awards — they were announced over a dinner in late April at the National Press Club in Washington D.C.

I was lucky enough to be the MC (or “emcee”) for the event — which gave me a chance to poke some gentle fun at bad documents and to honour great documents.

You can hear an interview with me about the Awards on ABC radio in Canberra here. (To listen, scroll down on that page to the heading “Welcome to Plain Language” then click the “play” icon.)


The Awards
At the Awards dinner, the Center announced 2 categories of winners:

• the ClearMark awards — they’re the good ones, for documents that are stunningly, refreshingly clear. There were 41 finalists from 9 categories.
• the WonderMark awards — they’re the bad ones, for documents that are hard to understand. The reason these awards are named the “WonderMark”, is that the documents make you think “I wonder what it means . . . I wonder who wrote it . . . I wonder what they were doing when they wrote it . . . I wonder what they thought they were doing when they wrote it . . . I wonder what they had for breakfast the day they wrote it.”

ClearMark winner — Best document
The Grand Prize of the ClearMark awards went to a company that has done a marvelous job of writing for its reader’s needs. The Award went to Healthwise for its “Conversation on Dealing with low Back Pain”, you can view it here.

WonderMark winner — Worst document
The WonderMark Grand Prize — for the most confused, frustrating, and mind-bogglingly unhelpful document — went to a document that is well known to Australians who have flown to the US. The winner was the green form you fill out for the US immigration authorities on the plane when flying to the US. The Form is called the I-94W Non-immigrant Visa Waiver Arrival/Departure Record.

The Form is so hard to understand and fill out that Qantas aircrew routinely say to passengers something like:

“This form is hard to fill out correctly. Don’t worry if you make a mistake, we can give you another copy. But the secret to filling it out correctly is to start at the bottom, so remember ‘bottom’s up’.”

The way the Form asks for information is remarkably obscure — at least it is to people unfamiliar with the design of US government forms.  You can see the Form here. 

If you try to complete the Form, then to make the mistake of putting information in on the wrong row is embarassingly easy. Here’s why:

• The first row of the table asks you for one piece of information (your family name). So you happily write your name in that row.
• At the end of that first row — just below the line you write on — the Form says “Birth date (DD/MM/YY)”. So if you have a short-ish family name, then there’s room on the first row of the table to write in your date of birth (after your name).
• But your date of birth is meant to go in at the end of the second row.

Once you’ve started putting things on the wrong row, your whole Form ends up haywire. This happens a lot. I’ve done it (blush). In fact, one of the Qantas aircrew estimated that 25% of people make a mistake filling out the Form and need another copy.  Some people need more than 2 copies.

At the Awards dinner, I spoke about the Form, pointed out the above and then talked about my experiences with the Form as a visitor to the US and about how a country’s communications influences how it is perceived.

I explained to the audience at the dinner that when my flight to the US landed (on my way to the Awards) I was pleasantly surprised in the Los Angeles airport arrivals hall to be treated as — and referred to as — a visitor.

On all my previous trips to the US, I was (it sounds weird) referred to as “an alien”. For example, when I got into the arrivals hall on previous trips, a helpful official would say “US passport holders to lines 1 and 2. Aliens to lines 12 through 16.”

I remember wondering, “Where on earth do I go?”

This time, in the arrival hall it was lovely to be referred to as, and treated as, “a visitor” — much more welcoming, much more human.

It’s curious how such a simple change in a communication, can have such a dramatic impact on the reader or the listener.

As part of presenting the ClearMarkAward at the dinner, I said something like:
“As a visitor to the US (and not as an alien), but as a friend, can I say — respectfully — the green arrivals Form document doesn’t do you guys justice. Especially when you think about the voice of your nation’s brand."

The challenge is to make the style of legislation and of government writing live up to the inspiring ideals of the nation — just as a business’s documents need to live up to and enhance the brand values of the business.

When I think about the voice of the United States of America I think of the Declaration of Independence. It’s clear, it’s even poetic — yet it deals with large, complicated topics. It uses some unfamiliar words — for example “inalienable”. And some of its sentences are long. But even so, its theme, its message and its purpose are clear.

Imagine if more people in US took the approach taken by the people who write the documents that were the finalists for the ClearMark Awards. Imagine if writers across the US were to set the style of the Declaration of Independence as their goal and to try to write in that style when they wrote at work.

If more people did that, then there’d be much less chance of ending-up with the little gem the I-94W Non-immigrant Visa Waiver Arrival/Departure Record.

Maybe the Department of Homeland Security should ask some of the people who won the ClearMark Awards to rewrite the Form.

You know a lot of us want to change the world. Maybe the place to start is to improve our written communications.

Center’s ongoing campaign for Clarity
The Center has started a campaign demanding clear communication. You can see the campaign’s website — with some entertaining videos — here.


Cleardocs and plain language
For information about Cleardocs and plain language, see our site here.

Plain Language Conference part 1 — progress over 35 years

A 35-year measure of progress: Sweden rules OK

Some reflections, some challenges

A highlight, for me, of the PLAIN’s excellent plain-language conference in Sydney in October (which Cleardocs sponsored) was an observation about the 35-year progress of plain-language in Sweden made by Anne-Marie Hasselrot in her session with Eva Olovsson. Anne-Marie’s observation has wonderful implications for anyone interested in plain language — and a few engaging challenges. (Many thanks to Anne-Marie for reviewing a draft of this post.)

First some background. In the 1970s, the Swedish government set up a plain-language Division in the Ministry of Justice. The Division’s task is to review all draft legislation produced by Swedish government departments. Although the Division’s plain-language experts do not have the authority to reject drafts, or to demand changes, they actively edit, rework, and generally improve the clarity of Sweden’s draft legislation.

Anne-Marie works for the Division reviewing draft legislation. In her presentation, Anne-Marie said that:

• sometimes her heart sinks when she is asked to review yet another poorly written piece of draft legislation; and
• to re-enthuse herself, she looks at legislation enacted in the early days of her Division’s work.

The highlight of the conference for me was Anne-Marie’s comment that the drafts from government departments that she now receives for review are clearer etc. than the legislation enacted in the 1970s . . . after the plain-language Division had reviewed the draft legislation before it was enacted. How good is that, eh?

The challenge is to keep improving things. We need to work out what we can do so that in 2044 someone despairing at a document they are trying to make clearer can look back to 2009 and be happy with the progress that’s been made in the last 35 years — in Sweden and everywhere. By the way, I’m not thinking that Anne-Marie’s Division could be doing better. I wouldn’t know — my Swedish is even worse than my non-existent Portuguese. Rather, I’m thinking that what’s coming next is fascinating — how can we go further to make documents clearer?

Reflecting on all this makes me think the game has changed since I became involved in the 1990s at the Law Reform Commission of Victoria. In those days, the documents we worked on were — on the whole — horrendous. One example: a major bank’s guarantee, which I rewrote for the bank as a demonstration project:

• had an opening sentence of 1,528 words. (Please, nobody think I am focused on counting words and syllables — which is a controversial topic in the plain-language world. And hey, when a sentence is that long it’s worth commenting on — and it’s worth worrying about — the number of words in it);
• had a haphazard structure — with ideas repeated and more-or-less randomly ordered (perhaps that should be “… randomly disordered”); and
• was printed in a tiny typeface, on A3 paper, with absurdly long lines, and cramped white space.

Making that document clearer was fairly straight-forward . . . once you worked out what it meant. Testing the rewrite to work out how to make it clearer would have been useful and fun. Mind you, given the state of the original document, I think testing wasn’t really necessary to establish if the rewrite was clearer — I’d managed to improve things in many ways . . . yes, the average sentence length was shorter (but let’s not focus on that) . . . the material was completely restructured, there were many new headings, and there was an example. If the demonstration rewrite had ever been produced for use in the real world, then the design would have been nothing like the original.

By the way, in a court case involving the original guarantee, the barristers said they couldn’t understand it. Nor could the judge. So he refused to enforce the guarantee. See Houlahan v ANZ Banking, unreported judgment of Higgins J, Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court, 16 October 1992. Guess what? After that case, the bank rewrote the guarantee.

The thing is, nowadays, the documents many of us work on aren’t nearly as bad as that bank guarantee. So we need to be more creative in how we make documents clearer. We also need to research and test to make sure we are succeeding and to work out how to succeed more.

If we do these things, then (as I said in my paper at the conference) we’ll help plain language move from Main Street to Wall Street and then to waltz on down Clarity Boulevard.

Upwards & onwards

Christopher