Ah—the maligned adverb. Many writers eschew them. Stephen King, for example, seems to hate them. In his book, On Writing: A Memoir of the Craft, he writes, “I believe the road to hell is paved with adverbs[.]” He likens them to dandelions: one of them might look pretty, but they’re actually weeds that can and do take over your lawn (or, in the case of adverbs, your writing).
What is an adverb? Generally speaking, it’s a word that ends in –ly (though not always; scroll down here to see adverbs as emphasizers, amplifiers, and downtoners—all words we lawyers like to use). The purpose of an adverb is to modify verbs, adjectives or other adverbs. Getting rid of adverbs can, in fact, make our writing better because we are forced to choose stronger or more precise words. For example, I could write, Losing that case made me very angry. In that sentence, the adverb is “very” and it modifies “angry.” I wasn’t just angry, I was very angry. But wouldn’t it be more vivid, more precise, if I instead wrote, Losing that case made me livid?
That being said, there are good reasons to use adverbs, especially in legal writing of all kinds—memos, briefs, judicial opinions, statutes, rules, and regulations. Why? The law operates in the grey areas. A legal writer who is asked to give an objective opinion on whether a person might be liable for a particular claim can sometimes do no better than giving a qualified answer, like Martin is probably not liable. Other times, a legal writer will throw in adverbs to emphasize her point in a brief: Plaintiff is clearly entitled to relief. In judicial opinions, judges may want or need the wiggle room that an adverb can provide. A legal rule that comes from case law might allow certain conduct so long as it does not substantially burden certain people, for example. The question that lawyers will argue about in future cases, then, is what it means to substantially burden, and in so arguing, those lawyers will likely rely on tons of adverbs.
See here for a delightful article on why adverbs seem to be here to stay—at least for lawyers. Obviously, you’ll find it really enlightening.
The United States Supreme Court prohibits cameras during its oral arguments, although each argument is audio-recorded. But, as Last Week Tonight host John Oliver points out, audio recording makes television coverage of those arguments “basically unwatchable” because television must present its coverage of the arguments by using artist renderings of the proceedings with audio clips.