Poor writing can be costly. It’s a point we writing instructors have been emphasizing for a long time, but now we have evidence – $31,450 in evidence, to be exact.

That’s the amount U.S. Magistrate Judge Jacob Hart reduced attorney Brian Puricelli’s court-awarded fees for submitting written work to the court that was “careless,” full of typographical errors, and “nearly unintelligible.”

Despite these shortcomings, Hart considered Puricelli’s courtroom work “smooth” and “artful” in securing a $430,000 verdict in a complicated civil rights case, Devore vs. City of Philadelphia, so he decided that his court-awarded fees should be paid at two rates – $300 per hour for the courtroom work, but only $150 per hour for the pleadings.

I can guess what you’re thinking: $150 per hour for bad writing? Heck, I’d be willing to write badly for a lot less than that.

In his fee opinion Hart wrote, “Mr. Puricelli’s complete lack of care in his written product shows disrespect for the court. His errors, not just typographical, caused the court a considerable amount of work. Hence, a substantial reduction is in order. We believe that $150 per hour is, in fact, generous.”

Even after defense lawyers complained about the typographical errors in his work, Puricelli continued to submit error-studded text. To illustrate the problem, the judge quoted a paragraph from Puricelli’s response, marking each typo with “[sic]”:

“As for there being typos, yes there have been typos, but these errors have not detracted from the arguments or results, and the rule in this case was a victory for Mr. Devore. Further, had the Defendants not tired [sic] to paper Plaintiff’s counsel to death, some type [sic] would not have occurred. Furthermore, there have been omissions by the Defendants, thus they should not case [sic] stones.”

(Note that Hart gave Puricelli a pass on the concluding comma splice. A period or semicolon should have separated the last two sentences.)

Furthermore, the judge pointed out, throughout the litigation Puricelli referred to the trial court as “the United States District Court for the Easter District of Pennsylvania.”

“Considering the religious persuasion of the presiding officer,” quipped Hart, “the ‘Passover’ District would have been more appropriate.”

To make matters worse, Puricelli committed the ultimate error: He misspelled the judge’s name, referring to him as the “Honorable Jacon Hart.”

Puricelli’s mistakes went beyond typos. Paragraphs and pages were missing from the original complaint he filed with the court and sent to defense counsel, the judge said.

“Mr. Puricelli’s lack of care caused the court, and I am sure, defense counsel, to expend an inordinate amount of time deciphering the arguments and responding, accordingly,” he wrote.

A chastened Puricelli said that he had not intended to insult the court and that he had learned a valuable lesson. “I’ll try to do a little better on my written work in the future,” he said.

You expect legal writing to be correct. You hope (pray?) that it is clear. But do you expect it to be funny?

If you think legal discourse is necessarily dry and devoid of humor, consider the following passage from Bryan Garner’s The Elements of Legal Style:

“Pay careful attention to structuring your thoughts simply and directly. If you do not, readers will respond much as Justice Maule once did in listening to an advocate: ‘Mr. Smith, do you not think by introducing a little order into your narrative you might possibly render yourself a trifle more intelligible? . . . I should like to stipulate for some sort of order. There are plenty of them. There is the chronological, the botanical, the metaphysical, the geographical, even the alphabetical order would be better than no order at all.’”

The author of the authoritative Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage, Garner himself offers plenty of wry humor in discussing the do’s and don’ts of legal style, to wit:

And/or. “Banish from your working vocabulary this ‘much condemned conjunctive-disjunctive crutch of sloppy thinkers.’”

As per. “Help stamp out his unrefined bit of legaldegook and commercialese.”

Commence. “Begin or start–do not commence.”

Deem. “Often unnecessary, and usually stilted. Try to avoid it–that is, deem it to be undesirable in your writing.”

Enclosed please find. “The phrase is swollen deadwood in lawyers’ correspondence.”

If and when. “Use whichever one you mean, but not both.”

Just deserts. “So spelled, but trite.”

Said, adj. “The most baneful word in legaldegook.”

Same, n. “A sorry substitute for a pronoun.”

There’s nothing like a good laugh (or at least a good chuckle) to get your attention–except perhaps a quiz. So to keep you on your toes, here goes. Choose the correct word or phrase:

1. The above-mentioned / These deeds were misfiled.

2. The court absolved the defendant of / from financial liability and from / of  any wrongdoing.

3. The aforementioned / This decision aggravated / annoyed the plaintiff.

4. Lenders have agreed to make certain loans, advances, extensions of credit or / and/or other financial accommodations to or for the benefit of Borrower.

5. As per your instructions /  As you instructed, we have served notice.

6. The witness told blatant / flagrant lies to the grand jury to cover up for his flagrant / blatant breach of trust.

7. We will commence / begin our investigation tomorrow.

8. I consider / deem the cost excessive.

9. The judge will doubtlessly / doubtless reprimand the jury.

10. We will effectuate / effect the new policies in time to prevent additional errors.

11. Enclosed please find / I have enclosed three copies of the contract for your signature.

12. If / If and when we reach an agreement, we will reopen the plant.

13. In our judgement / judgment, it would be unwise to petition the court at this juncture / at this time.

14. The murderer received his just deserts / just desserts.

15. Although said / the defendant’s wife left the premises before the police arrived, same / she turned herself in two hours later.

16. The ruling supersedes / supercedes all others, thereby rendering moot the allegation of willful / wilful / willfull negligence.

Scoring is simple: The correct choices are the first ones in the even-numbered sentences and the second ones in the odd-numbered sentences.

In addition to these commonly misused words and expressions, Garner identifies certain “vogue words” – such as bottom line, hopefully, liability-wise, state of the art, and worst case scenario – that “make you sound like an unthinking writer of ready-made phrases.”