So far, only three published studies have analyzed the association between brief readability and case outcome, 50 and no studies have analyzed that association in the trial courts, where most lawyers
practice.51 Long and Christensen
sampled 882
appellate briefs from the Supreme Court, federal
appellate courts, and state supreme courts.52 Their dependent variable was the outcome
of the appeal (affirmed or reversed), while their independent variable was readability measured by the Flesch Reading Ease score as calculated by Microsoft Word.53 For federal
appellate and state supreme court briefs, the researchers coded control variables for federal or state court, standard
of review, presence
of a dissenting opinion, and readability
of the opinion deciding the appeal.54 For United States Supreme Court briefs, the researchers coded control variables for constitutional issue, criminal or civil case, presence
of a dissenting opinion, and opinion readability.55 They found no statistically significant correlation between readability and outcome in the briefs in their study.56
For example, Kenneth Chestek found that judges, law clerks, and
practicing lawyers rated
sample briefs with strong narrative components as more persuasive than
sample briefs without strong narrative components.13 Sean Flammer found that judges rated
sample briefs as more persuasive when they were written in plain language rather than in legalese.14 Similarly, Robert Benson and Joan Kessler found that
appellate judges and their law clerks preferred briefs written in plain language rather than in legalese.15 Finally, Joseph Kimble and Steve Harrington found that judges and attorneys preferred plain language over legalese.16 These studies, however, measure only the judges» and lawyers» stated preferences for particular styles
of writing.