The Reglab Style Guide aims to guide the writing and development of texts and articles produced by our researchers. Furthermore, we seek to provide transparency regarding our methods and choices, fostering an open dialogue with the academic and professional communities. We also hope to inspire similar initiatives within the industry, encouraging the use of more accessible language that is attuned to social demands.
Guidethe writing and elaboration of texts and articles produced by Reglab researchers;
Givetransparencyabout our methods and choices for the community
academic and professional;
Inspiresimilar initiatives in the industry, promoting a more accessible language that is connected to social demands.
Reglab is athink tank specialized in research and consultancywhich assists companies, business associations and policymakers with data-driven planning and impact analysis. Our focus is on taking
responsible and strategic decisions, unveiling the
our objective is to promoteevidence-based researchthat increase accountability and establish meaningful milestones and goals for the ecosystem.
Find out more at:
We start from the premise that traditional academic (and legal) language
It is old and exclusionary. People in general have difficulty understanding. This language perpetuates a hierarchical relationship, as if the legal class were special. And in the end, it also becomes a question of access to knowledge.
It is not new that academia discusses the urgency of adapting to a more objective, less erudite and, consequently, less exclusionary language.1, and similar initiatives are already beginning to emerge, fromthink tanks, like theCenter for Plain Languagein the US, and universities that publish their style guides for academic writing, such as the University of Southern California2 and the University of Oxford3.
Therefore, the choice of certain words, sentences, format and conciseness in the way we write is more than style – it is a conscious strategy.
We are concerned about writing simply. Objectively, directly. We are concerned with thinking about the receiver, with understanding that he is not necessarily a specialist. And even if it were, we need to defend what we believe in, leave our mark and our position, trying to simplify a complex universe.
Writing simple does not mean creating shallow content. In fact, writing simple is very, very difficult.It’s translating complex ideas in an accessible way, making them easy to understand.Therefore, this manual aims to provide tips on how to simplify writing, with objectivity and clarity for everyone.
https://www.chronicle.com/article/why-academics-stink-at-writing/
Writing well is writing in a simple, precise and objective way. And it’s difficult, but not impossible. Simplicity, objectivity, economy of words are our main principles when writing.
- Every time you write, do the exercise:
- Is this the simplest way to explain the idea in this paragraph?
- Is it possible to cut unnecessary or redundant words?
- Would a person who does not have legal training understand this text?
Firstly, any type of text must have cohesion and coherence. Following a logical sequence is essential for the text to make sense. Plan what you want to write before starting to develop the text, establish ideas that follow a logical sequence. ALWAYS reread the text! And remember that arguments should always be scored in order of importance.
Some other tips
Is the question asked being answered clearly? If it is an article, am I addressing the topic clearly? Is this what the reader expects from me?
One way to make the text lighter and simpler is to use bullet points, links and bold. We will also make use of charts, tables and graphs, to highlight, more didactic explanations of concepts or emphasis of notes.
The use of Latin is perhaps the main example of how legal culture is trapped in traditions and languages that exclude the majority of people, making understanding difficult. Its use is only permitted if the use of that expression is essential for understanding an argument (e.g.habeas corpus).
The exaggerated use of expressions in other languages, especially English, is also a way of making understanding more difficult. In the corporate world, expressions like.report, turner over, budget, meeting and issueThey are used excessively in spoken language, and should be avoided in written language. Use an anglicism only when the translation does not correctly reflect its meaning (e.g.gatekeeper).
Those words we used in college to impress teachers need to stop. And we believe that the first step is to abolish it from our vocabulary, standing for this simplicity.
Some examples of expressions that we suggest not adopting:
“Henceforth”, “in this capacity”, “by virtue of”, “in the best form of law”, “for the purposes of compliance”, “doctor” “considerations on”, “nevertheless” “precepts, “legal diploma”, “otherwise”, “in the meantime”, “with regard to this theme”, “with regard to”, “problematic”, “postulate/ postulate”, “it is necessary”, “gave occasion to”, “list of rights/obligations”, “with regard to a”, “as you rightly pointed out”, “host”, “legal framework”, “under the aegis”, “in effect”…
Expressions of intensity, absolute value and generalizations are more suited to rhetorical activities (e.g. litigation,advocacy) with an academic and scientific language. Adverbs of manner, intensity or superlatives can harm the credibility of the text (e.g.there are huge problems in this sector; there is extreme surveillance on networks)
This word comes from Latin. In Rome, it was used to describe what scholars said. In Portuguese, its association with “catechization” was very common until the 19th century. In Brazil, it was (and still is) a way of preserving legal and political elites.
Talk about doctrine, indoctrinators, etc. it only perpetuates a “class division” in Law, as if these people were above others because of their knowledge. In fact, this is a practice that is practically non-existent in other social sciences!
This does not mean that arguments brought by important professors and researchers cannot be used. But avoid giving adjectives to people: as Doctor Fernando, Honorable Judge, renowned jurist, etc. says. And, above all, do not use these researchers as the only source of legitimization of your argument.
We use this a lot in legal texts. You need to be careful with excessive and unnecessary use, which can make the text slower and more tiring to understand.
These are some examples of connection elements that should be used sparingly:
| Function | Examples of connection elements |
|---|---|
| addition | because, in addition, and also, but also, on the one hand/on the other |
| cause | It is evident that, certainly, naturally, evidently, |
| reaffirmation | In this sense, in other words, that is, again, in short, in summary, in this way |
| position | But, although, however, however, although, however, neither, on the other hand |
| emphasis | Effectively, in effect, in fact, as we have seen, as we were able to reflect, once again |
| attention | It should be noted that, pay attention to the fact that, it appears that, we check once again |
| certainty | Evidently, certainly, certainly, naturally |
| conclusion | Therefore, then, finally, in short, in conclusion, so that |
We use this excessively in texts and contracts. “must pay”, “must do”, “must provide”. Try changing to the simple future: will pay, do, provide…
Another common problem in law is the passive voice, which is used excessively. Here are some examples and how to improve them:
Replace with:
“The São Paulo Forum is hereby agreed for disputes”…
“The parties define the Forum
of São Paulo for disputes”
“The Party will be subject to a fine in case of non-compliance with the contract”
The Party will pay a fine if it fails to comply with the contract.”
It was defined in Congress that…
Congress defined that…
Sometimes we state our opinion as if it were absolute. “Believe me, I am a superior being and my opinion is right.” This happens more often than it seems…
There is a rule of academic methodology that greatly helps this type of self-surveillance.
It’s the AJR rule:
Statement, Justification, Reservation.
In theory, every good text and good argument should be like this. Look:
The impact of digital advertising on the economy is significant (claim). According to a report by IAB Brasil, more than 35 billion were invested in advertisements in this medium in 2023 (justification). This value does not consider investments made in Connected TV, a growing medium (caveat).
The approval of bill 222/22 could negatively impact the technology market (statement). This is because data storage obligations can generate relevant costs for companies, especially startups (justification). The impact will be smaller if articles X, Y and Z are excluded (caveat).
Preferably, do not start the text with quotation marks, as it loses originality at the beginning of production. If it is essential for the development of the idea/paragraph, use indirect citation. When citing an article or author, it is essential to reference the source.
Direct quotesALWAYSwe use double quotes.
References must follow a single rule/standard. At Reglab, we adopt the
latest ABNT rules, preferably in the author-date model.