Bench & Bar July/August 2025

law, complex factual records, and novel arguments. Don't hedge when the evidence is strong or the law is clear. Context matters. 5. Signal Deference: Words and phrases like "suggests" (rather than “proves”) acknowledge the court's inter pretive authority. SUBSTANCE OVER STYLE The most effective intensifier is often no intensifier at all. A straight forward, well-supported assertion grounded in solid evidence and clear reasoning is exceptionally powerful. Your arguments should persuade through strong evidence, logical reasoning, clear articula tion, and appropriate confidence. It's like the adage goes: if the facts are on your side, pound the facts; if the law is on your side, pound the law; if neither is on your side, pound the table. Intensifiers are the linguistic equivalents of pounding the table: they signal that you’re out of good arguments. In short, modifiers are supporting tools, not substitutes for substance. You can't rescue a weak argu ment with intensifiers, and you shouldn't obscure a strong one with unnecessary hedging. THE BOTTOM LINE: ABOUT THE AUTHOR

But here's what those lawyers miss: strategic hedging can actually boost your credibility. The law is rarely as clear-cut as we'd like, especially when dealing with the types of disputed issues that land in court. By acknowledging complexity while still advocating your position, you establish credibility with judges who know better than anyone that legal questions usually have multiple defensible answers. Judges appreciate lawyers who show intellectual honesty and appro priate deference to the court's interpretive role.

STRATEGIC HEDGING SIGNALS: • Intellectual honesty • Thorough analysis • Respect for the court's role • Reasonableness

For example, "While opposing counsel argues X, the evidence suggests Y" sounds more reasoned than an absolute assertion and positions you as a helpful guide rather than a dogmatic advocate. THE RULES FLIP FOR JUDGES When judges use hedgers and intensifiers, the stakes are fundamen tally different because judicial opinions don't just describe law—they create it. Their words carry the force of law itself. Judges use hedging strategically, often to signal deference to another court or earlier decision. But what's particularly fascinating is how they deploy intensifiers. Perhaps counterintuitively, judges often use intensifiers like clearly and obviously more frequently when matters become less clear—especially when writing dissenting opinions. Rather than reflecting genuine certainty, these intensifiers serve as rhetorical tools to project authority and finality in the face of disagreement. PRACTICAL GUIDELINES FOR PRACTITIONERS 1. Use Intensifiers Wisely. Before using

SUSAN TANNER is an Assistant Professor of Law at the University of Louisville Brandeis School of Law, where she teaches Lawyering Skills and AI and the Law. She holds a J.D. from Indiana Univer sity Maurer School of Law and a Ph.D. in Rhetoric from Carnegie Mellon University, where she used corpus linguistics to study, among other topics, the use of modifiers in legal language.

clearly, obviously, or undoubtedly, ask: "Would a neutral, well-informed judge truly find this beyond dispute?" If not, strengthen your evidence in stead of your adjectives. 2. Avoid Redundancy: Don't write "very unique" or "absolutely essential." Strong nouns and verbs eliminate the need for most intensifiers. Similarly, too many hedgers can take the force out of your sentences. 3. Choose Your Battles: When every thing is emphasized, nothing is. Save intensifiers for genuinely strong points. 4. Hedge Strategically to Build Trust: Use hedging to show reasonableness when dealing with unsettled areas of

39 bench & bar