Final Version Clarity 2012 Client Preferences Presentation

• 1. The Public Speaks: An Empirical Study of Legal CommunicationChristopher Trudeau,Thomas M. Cooley Law School

2. Why This Study? Because Were Still LeftWith Many Unanswered Questions To what degree do clients and non-clients prefer plainlanguage over traditional legal language? Do clients read what lawyers write? How do clients react when they see complicated legallanguage that they dont understand? How often will they look up complicated terms? Have they ever been so frustrated by such language that theyquit reading a document? 3. Designing the Study Initially, I focused on using a printed survey distributed tocurrent or past clients by contacting many Michigan lawfirms; however, it became clear that this was not practical. Many Michigan law firms were understandably hesitant to provide client contact information or forward the printed survey. So I switched to an online survey, which provided thefollowing benefits: There was less burden on law firms because they could simply forward the surveys link to their client email list. The survey could be completely anonymous, and the responders names would not be revealed to me or the law firms. This would also reduce clients concern that their attorney would find out how they really feel. 4. But Firms Were Still Resistant! Even though I would not receive any client informationwhatsoever, some firms again denied my requests for help. Although the stated reasons varied, they ranged from notwanting to bother clients with trivial matters to amanaging partner telling me he was afraid of the responsesthat his firms clients might provide. But four firms were willing to send the survey to theirclients, and all four focused on different practice areas. Civil defense, civil litigation, estate planning, real estate, and family law. 5. Expanding the Sample I expanded my study sample to include the public for thefollowing reasons: It increased my sample size, which resulted in a more representative sample of the population; It allowed me to reach more past clients (and non-clients) than through individually selected firms; and It allowed me to compare the results between clients and non-clients. I used snowball sampling to accomplish this. That is, Iasked those receiving the survey to forward the surveys linkto their contact list, who would then take the survey andforward the link. As you can gather, the survey distribution snowballs, and you receive more responses. 6. The Survey: 28 Questions in Four Categories1. Experience with Attorneys Designed to separate clients from non-clients.2. Preferences for Attorney Communication Designed to gather information in areas for which there is little orno empirical data, such as The importance responders attached to understanding anattorney, The percentage who have received a legal document that wasdifficult to understand, and The responders reactions when reading material that wasdifficult to understand. 7. Four Categories continued:3. Choice-of-Language Questions Designed to test whether responders preferred plain legal language or traditional legal language. Importantly, these questions did not skew the answers to plain language; they simply gave responders a choice between a plain version and a traditional version. Limited to the following areas: Active voice v. passive voice (four questions) Strong verbs v. nominalizations (two questions) Plain words v. complex words (four questions) Explaining a legal term v. not explaining that term (one question)4. Demographic Questions Designed to help categorize the results on age, education, etc. 8. Analyzing the Responses 376 people responded to the survey. I had hoped for 300, so this was a pleasant surprise. Clients comprised 54.5% of the sample. (220 responses) Non-Clients comprised 45.5%. (171 responses) Responses in every age category: 59 (16.3%) were 18 29 years of age; 100 (27.6%) were 30 39 years of age; 64 (17.7%) were 40 49 years of age; 78 (21.5%) were 50 59 years of age; 46 (12.7%) were 60 69 years of age; 11 (3.0%) were 70 79 years of age; and 1 respondent (0.3%) was 80+ years of age. 9. Analyzing the Responses continued: Responses by education level: 116 respondents (31.9%) had less than a bachelors degree (an associates degree, some college, or a high-school diploma); 105 (28.9%) had a bachelors degree; 80 (22.1%) had a masters or doctoral degree; and 61 (16.8%) had a law degree. Caveat: The sample includes far more responderswith advanced degrees than the population as awhole. But that is a benefit here because it allowed meto more accurately measure the differencesbetween the educational levels. 10. The Results: Importance of Clear, UnderstandableCommunication Question: How important is it for a client to understand whatan attorney is saying in a letter or document? 99.7% of responders thought it was at least important to understand an attorney! 88.3% said it was very important. 11.4% said it was important. This result may seem obvious, but it provides empiricalsupport for the central goal of the plain-language movement. 11. The Results: Importance of Clear, UnderstandableCommunication Question: In your lifetime, have you ever received a letter ordocument from any attorney that was difficult tounderstand? 71% of responders indicated that they had received a document that was difficult to understand at some point in their lifetime. The Takeaway: 99.7% of the responders thought it wasimportant to understand attorneys, yet 7 out of 10 havestruggled to do so at some point in their lives. Clearly attorneys should strive to do better! 12. The Results: Importance of Clear, UnderstandableCommunication Question: If you read an attorneys letter or legal documentand you did not understand a term, would you look up thatterm? 32% said they would always look up the term, 27% would often look up the term, 25% would sometimes look up the term, 13% would rarely look up the term, and 4% would never look up the term. So while a majority (58%) would at least often look up aterm, 17% would rarely or never do so. That means 1 in 8people wouldnt understand the term odds that I surewouldnt want to take. 13. The Results: Importance of Clear,Understandable Communication Question: How does it make you feel when an attorney usesLatin words or complicated words in written documents? Note: I asked this question early in the survey so the answers would not be biased by previous responses.Respondents Reaction To Complicated Terms or Latin WordsLess thanMasters & Answer Choice Overall Bachelors BachelorsDoctoralJuris DoctorAnnoyed 40.9%43.5%41.9%40.0%34.4% Bothered a little18.7%23.5%14.3%18.8%14.8%No influence29.8%22.6%31.4% 30% 44.3%Impressed 0.5% 1.7% 0% 0% 0% Other10.0% 8.7%12.4%11.3% 6.6% 14. The Results: Importance of Clear, UnderstandableCommunication Question: Have you ever felt so frustrated when reading anattorneys letter or a legal document that you stoppedreading it before it ended? 38% said they had stopped reading a document out of frustration, 16% could not recall doing so, and 47% had not stopped reading a document. But what frustrates these people? After this question, Iadded a text box asking responders to explain why theystopped reading a document. Here are some responses: It was all in the English language, yet I could not understand the mumbo-jumbo!! This for me feels condescending and corrupt. 15. The Results: Importance of Clear,Understandable Communication If you cant understand the Because it made me feel dumb. document, there is little And I didnt know what was motivation to read the entire being said. thing. If too much of the content is Lack of answer, simplicity, and difficult to understand, I feel way too long. like Ive already missed too Because of legal terminology. I much to get the full meaning. do not feel like I am a stupid I used to work for some good person by any stretch of theattorneys that treated people imagination, but just imagine as equals. So when I used my how those feel of average orown, I was mad that he was below-average intelligence dueusing terms to make himself to lack of education, socialsound better than me. circumstances, etc. 16. The Results: Choice-of-Language Questions Overall Result: 80.2% of clients & non-clients preferredthe plain version! This is eerily similar to the results of the judicial surveys. Past clients were 5% more likely to choose the plainversion. 82.4% of clients selected the plain version. 77.5% of non-clients selected the plain version. This was much higher than I expected for a few reasons: I varied the complexity of the 11 sentences. Some were single-variable questions with only one error. Others were multi-variable questions with more than one error. All the sentences were understandable, so there was no obvious choice in most instances. 17. The Results: Choice-of-Language Questions Overall Result: As complexity increases, so does thepreference for plain language. 75% of responders chose the plain version for single-variable sentences. (Those six sentences where there was only a single error.) 86% of responders chose the plain version for multi-variable sentences. (Those five sentences where there were multiple errors.) There was almost no difference between clients and non-clients. And there were only minor differences based on theresponders education level. 18. The Results: Choice-of-Language Questions Overall Result: As education increases, so does thepreference for plain language! 76.5% of responders with less than a bachelors degree preferred the plain version; 79.4% of those with bachelors degree preferred the plain version; 82.0% of responders with masters or doctoral degrees preferred the plain version; and 86.0% of responders with law degrees preferred the plain version. These results were counter-intuitive to me. I had predictedjust the opposite. 19. The Results: Choice-of-Language Questions Moreover, this result was true for almost all of theindividual questions. The only time the percentages substantially varied from this trend was for responders with law degrees. And, even then, this only happened on the two questions where I asked respondents about two of legal writings common offenders using multi-word prepositions (pursuant to v. under) and using Latin words (inter alia v. among other things). So it is not too surprising that the percentages dropped for those questions. 20. The Results: Choice-of-Language QuestionsChoice-of-Language Questions: Educational Distribution Percentage Selecting Plain-Language VersionQuestion &Less thanMasters &Error TypeOverall Avg. Bachelors BachelorsDoctoral Juris Doctor Q.14 (passive)56.7% 47.4%57.1%60.0%70.5% Q.15 (wordy)83.1% 80.7%81.0%81.3%93.4% Q.16 (passive)72.0% 63.2%68.6%77.5%86.9% Q.17 (wordy)90.6% 87.9%89.4%93.7%93.3% Q.18 (wordy)97.2% 94.8%97.1%100% 98.4% Q.19 (wordy)81.0% 85.3%81.9%82.5%68.9% Q.20 (legal explanation) 78.4%79.3%75.7%82.3%76.3% Q.21 (wordy) 97.0%100% 97.1%98.8%88.5% Q.22 (passive) 68.1%62.3%65.7%63.8%88.5% Q.23 (wordy) 79.6%69.8%81.0%83.8%90.2% Q.24 (passive & wordy) 78.7%71.3%79.0%78.8%91.8% Total Avg. 80.2%76.5%79.4%82.0%86.0% 21. The Results: Choice-of-Language Questions Active v. Passive: Individual Results Question 14: (Single-Variable) 56.7% The employers attorney questioned the witnesses. 43.3% The witnesses were questioned by the employers attorney. Question 16: (Multi-Variable) 72.0% The Board of Directors decided to review the file. 28.0% A decision was made by the Board of Directors to review the file. Question 22: (Single-Variable) 68.1% The court dismissed the case. 31.9% The case was dismissed by the court. Question 24: (Multi-Variable) 78.7% Michigan courts have consistently held that homeowners must actually supply alcohol to a minor to violate the statute. 21.3% It has been consistently held by Michigan courts that a homeowner must actually engage in the supplying of alcohol to a minor to commit a violation of the statute. 22. The Results: Choice-of-Language Questions Active v. Passive Overall: Respondents preferred the activevoice 69% of the time. 73% for client responders. 65% for non-client responders. A significant difference between single-variable questions(14 & 22) and multi-variable questions (16 & 24) 62% selected active for single-variable questions. 75% for multi-variable questions. Why the 13% difference? Both options for the single-variable sentences were understandable on the first read through and were about the same amount of words. The active sentences were noticeably shorter in the multi-variable questions, and the passive sentences both used nominalizations along with the passive voice. 23. The Results: Choice-of-Language Questions Word-Choice Questions: Individual Results Question 15: 83.1% Discovery may begin before the judge considers the motion. 16.9% Discovery may proceed prior to the judges consideration of the motion. Question 17: 90.5% If this breach continues, my client will immediately terminate this contract. 9.5% If there is a continuation of this breach, my client will effect an immediate termination of this contract. Question 18: 97.2% I have signed and enclosed the stipulation to dismiss your case. 2.8% I am herewith returning the stipulation to dismiss your case; the same being duly executed by me. 24. The Results: Choice-of-Language Questions Question 19: 81.0% Under the statute, you must purchase insurance. 19.0% Pursuant to the statute, you must purchase insurance. Question 21: 97% The court, among other things, decided that the defendant was negligent. 3% The court, inter alia, decided that the defendant was negligent. Question 23: 79.6% Before the injury, my client was able to work a full week. Therefore, the injury has significantly impacted my clients ability to lead a normal life. 20.4% Prior to the injury, my client was able to work a full week. Therefore, said injury has significantly impacted my clients ability to lead a normal life. 25. The Results: Choice-of-Language Questions Word-Choice Questions Overall: Responders chose theplain version 88% of the time. Both clients and non-clients preferred the plain version at similar rates: 90% for clients & 86% for non-clients. Astounding for two reasons: I never asked responders to choose the plain version; rather, I simply asked them which passage they would prefer to read. Only a couple of traditional passages were difficult to understand; the rest were understandable. 26. The Results: Choice-of-Language Questions Explaining Legal Terms: Question 20 21.6% If you dont respond, the court will issue a defaultjudgment. 78.4% If you dont respond, the court will issue a defaultjudgment. That means youll lose, and the court will give theplaintiff what he is asking for. Both clients & non-clients overwhelmingly preferred the legalexplanation: 81.2% of clients & 75.3% of non-clients. Note: Both version were plainly written because I was testing whetherresponders would prefer the explanation even though the passage waslonger. The Takeaway: Normally, attorneys should reduce the number ofwords in their documents. But if those words are essential to explaininga term, then attorneys should include that explanation. 27. Conclusion Where do we go from here? This study should not be the end of the discussion. I encourage others to validate these results byperforming similar studies or extensions of this study indifferent locales. Ill offer my data set, the survey, and my assistance to anywho would like to conduct similar studies in the future. Contact me at [email protected], and Id be happy to send you much more detailed results, the survey, etc.Thank You!