Speaking of PJ Gilbert, the DJ runs his monthly column today, this one titled Terrifying Judges.
But all writers have an obligation to all of their readers - to be understood. We may fall short of this goal because we often write to understand. Writing through the problem gets the writer to a way station, a place of private understanding. This "stop" may be far from the final destination. The re-write for the reader tests the writer's understanding.
It requires effort to express what we wish to say or write. And it requires effort to read with are so we do not make unwarranted assumptions. Even with these cautions, uncertainty is ubiquitous.
|"An opinion ought to be written so that a reasonably intelligent
reader knows what it means. The opinion ought to be concise and clear, not
vague and obscure. The holding of a case should state a principle of law with
sufficient clarity so that persons can carry on their affairs with reasonable
predictability as to the legal consequences of their actions. If, however, an
opinion can reasonably be susceptible to different interpretations, then the
writer may have failed to meet his or her obligation.... We writers and readers
of opinions should heed the admonition of Voltaire. 'Let all the laws be clear,
uniform and precise: to interpret laws is almost always to corrupt them.'|
(A Dict. of Legal Quotations (1987) p.18.)"
Also possibly of interest at Law360: High Court Limits Appeals Of Denied Bankruptcy Plans