Lost in Translation: Effective Legal Writing for the International Legal Community. By Kevin J. FANDL. New Providence, NJ : LexisNexis, 2013. Pp. xv, 139. ISBN 978-0-76-985746-6 (paperback) US$59.00.


The intended audience for this book is foreign law students & practitioners who need to communicate professionally with U.S. based English-speakers. However this short and hastily (read sloppily) edited text provides nothing new or valuable. The book itself did not necessarily shape itself to the particular needs of non-U.S. law students or practitioners and the advice seemed generic and at times patronizing. Overall I was completely underwhelmed.


Chapter 3 Making Your Writing Effective

Chapter 8, Part IV: Editing in Nadia Nedzel’s Legal reasoning, research, and writing for international graduate students (2012), and the CALI Lessons on Punctuation and Grammar, are in my opinion preferable resources for learning U.S. Legal Grammar than Fandl’s Chapter 3.

Chapter 4 Drafting Correspondence

Fandl’s 2 pages of bulleted and numbered lists provide the reader with tips and an outline for writing a letter to a client (including a statement, 3c., on p. 31 containing the first of several typos that I, unfortunately, noticed in this book on professional legal writing). This was followed by 5 pages of detailed explanations and blurry greyscale screenshots illustrating how to use specific features of MS Outlook. That this is not a problem specific to a foreign audience, is demonstrated by the existence of the ABA Publication The Lawyer's Guide to Microsoft® Outlook 2010 (2012). For a generic understanding of professional email drafting, Lee, Hall, & Barone’s American Legal English: Using Language in Legal Contexts (2007) provides email writing tips and activities starting on p. 184.

Chapter 5 Drafting Legal Memoranda and Case Briefs

A particularly disappointing chapter, not only is it so mundane as to merely echo the basic tenets in any legal writing text without adding anything that would be of particular value for a foreign audience, but vague and imprudent advice is given in the section on research strategy. Fandl instructs readers to start with secondary sources, but makes no mention of using them to find references to the most relevant primary sources.  He also provides an example of how the user should search LexisNexis® to find relevant statutes and case law by doing a broad jurisdiction specific keyword search. Not only is that an ineffective way to search LexisNexis®, for topic specific primary law, but his description of how to do that search is unclear. For superior instruction on drafting legal memoranda and case briefs and for general in-depth explanations of U.S. research techniques aimed at a foreign audience, again, I point you to Lee, et al. (2007) and Nedzel (2012).


The editor seems determined to make the use of these exercises as difficult as possible for the reader.

At the end of each exercise is one of two statements intended to lead the user to the sample answer. The reader is told either "Suggested solutions can be found in Appendix A" or "sample <insert noun here> can be found in Appendix B".

In each Appendix the materials are lettered [A] etc.

  • the text does not refer the reader to solutions on a specific page number or even section letter within each Appendix
  • the solutions titles are haphazardly listed
  • solutions are not provided in the same order in which the exercises themselves appear in the text
  • nor are they in alphabetical order
  • the titles of the solutions do not always match exactly the titles of the exercises

This creates the frustrating experience of trying to flip back and forth between the text of the exercise and the Appendices, trying to find the right solution. If it was difficult for a native English speaker, how much more challenging must it be for someone speaking English as a Second Language (the supposed target audience of this book).

This whole fiasco could have been avoided in two simple ways.

1. Put the solutions to exercises on the page after the exercises themselves.

2. Provide actual page numbers when directing the reader to a sample document in Appendix B.


The index did not have page numbers, instead referring the reader to a chapter and a lettered section, sometimes followed by a numeral for a subsection. This method is useful for a loose-leaf publications but unnecessarily confusing for a book that has page numbers.


This book attempts to teach the reader a strange combination of skills related to professional U.S. legal writing. The writing lessons in Chapter 3 are nothing that could not be gleaned from a fair read of Strunk & White’s The Elements of Style (2012) or the relevant chapter section in Nedzel (2012). The legal writing exercises in Lee, et al. (2007) are more appropriate for the audience, easier to use, and with more than twice the content, it’s less than half the price of Fandl’s book.

If Fandl’s ethnocentric and misleading title (which could have been corrected by adding the words “in the United States”, See eg. Deborah H. McGregor & Cynthia M. Adams, The International Lawyer's Guide to Legal Analysis And Communication in the United States) rubbed me the wrong way when I first cracked the book open, the lack of organization of the answers to the exercises proved the death knell.

I give this book two thumbs down for being a waste of perfectly good trees. But don’t take my word for it. Here’s an earlier draft freely available online in non-tree killing pdf format.