In May 1940, when Winston Churchill took over as prime minister of Great Britain, his country was on its knees. The French army was in retreat about to collapse. More than half a million British troops were backed up at Dunkirk and in danger of being captured. Churchill sent an urgent plea to U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt for help.

Roosevelt’s response: “Good luck.”

Rather than take offence or react with dismay, Churchill understood the lesson from the brevity of Roosevelt’s message. Roosevelt was saying two things: if circumstances allowed later, America would be on Britain’s side (which of course it was). But for now, Britain was alone.

Two words, two ideas.

Churchill also knew that to make a point in writing, keep it short. He didn’t need to read through pages of verbiage to know that U.S. planes, tanks and soldiers were not on the way anytime soon.

As author Erik Larson notes in his book The Splendid and the Vile, as soon as Churchill became prime minister, “One of the first things he did was insist that ministers compose memoranda with that were no more than one page long.”

Churchill believed that, “It is slothful not to compress your thoughts.”

It’s noteworthy that Churchill, while a Nobel Prize-winning author, leader and legislator, was not a lawyer. In our experience lawyers have more trouble than many others in keeping their words short and to the point.

In our work with lawyers, we are often asked to edit their letters. We find that lawyers carry with them a lot of stray verbiage they picked up at law school. It is our job to strip it off.

Let’s get to the point with an example. With permission, below are the first five paragraphs of a two-page letter recently written by a lawyer at the early stages of the family law file. The lawyer represented the husband and was writing to the as-yet unrepresented wife.

It took 201 words:

“Please be advised that I have been retained by Mr. X with respect to the above-noted matter.

“As you may be aware, my client has recently been released on his own recognizance and is permitted to communicate with you through legal counsel.

“My client wishes to resolve all outstanding issues arising from your separation on an amicable basis. In particular, I am writing with urgency regarding establishing an interim parenting schedule between the parties’ son, Y [the child’s full name], and my client.

“To that end, Mr. X proposes that the parties work towards creating a shared parenting schedule. In order to reinstate meaningful access, my client further proposes that he have parenting time this Wednesday April 1st commencing at 7:30 a.m. until Sunday, April 5th at 5:00 p.m.

“Kindly note that my client wishes to assure you that he has taken all steps necessary to make Y’s health and safety his priority at this time. He will therefore be residing with Mr. Z, at ADDRESS. Mr. Z lives alone in a spacious four-bedroom home with plenty of space and activities for my client and Y. Further, Mr. Z is currently completing online studies from home and is following all government guidelines regarding social distancing.”

The point is that this letter could have said everything in fewer words, and it would be clearer — and better.

Among other things, the writer uses the phrase “my client” 15 times (when referring to the recipient’s ex-husband), “the parties” five times (when referring to the wife, who is supposed to be reading the letter, and her husband) and the full name of their only child’s full first and last name three times. One should assume a mother knows her child’s name. The lawyer made excessive use of some of our most dreaded words and phrases, such as: “therefore,” “to that end,” “in the meantime,” “in order to,” and “above all.”

How would you shorten this letter? In future columns we’ll dive in and attack this kind of bloated lawyer-speak. For now, see what you can do.

Can you can cut these 201 words to fewer than 100 and the five paragraphs to two or three? Feel free to send your edits to us, or simply use this as your own writing exercise.

Remember, it is slothful not to compress your thoughts.

David Israelson is a non-practising lawyer, author and journalist. You can follow him on Twitter @davidisraelson or on Linkedin. Robert Rotenberg is a criminal lawyer at his firm Rotenberg, Shidlowski, Jesin and the author of five bestselling legal thrillers. His sixth will be published in February 2021. Together they teach lawyers and business executives how to improve their writing and communication skills.