My Latest Pet Peeve: “Not Only . . . But Also . . .”

Lately, I have been sensitive to and particularly irked by a common sentence construction: “not only … but also … .”  For example, “not only was the juror related to the defense counsel, but she was also friends with the defendant” or  “not only did the district court abuse its discretion, but it also committed plain error.” ”Not only … but also …”  is used when the writer wants to emphasize a particular point, or exaggerate the many factors that favor a particular position. But it has the opposite result. The wordiness detracts from the persuasiveness. And it phrases the positive in the negative. Isn’t it better to simply state, “the juror was related to the defense counsel and friends with the defendant” and ”the district court committed plain error,” or even “the district court did not just abuse its discretion, it committed plain error”?

“Not only … but also …” is used commonly in speech as well. At the moment, I am too biased against the phrase to opine as to whether it is appropriate there, but at least its delivery is packaged with a particular intonation and pace that perhaps makes it okay. Regardless, the fact that this phrase is commonly used in speech helps in understanding why I have seen it pop up in writings time again.  When I catch myself tempted to use the phrase, it is because I am transcribing my thoughts as I would say them out loud–the likely reason most writers use the phrase.

In that light, the prevalence of the phrase in writing is an example of how certain phrases that we use in speech are so ingrained in our mode of expression that we take them for granted when we start writing. There is no problem with transcribing thoughts as you would speak them to write a first draft. In fact, “writing how you speak” is sometimes considered an important tactic for clear writing and avoiding legalese. But transcribed speech should be refined to clear and precise writing through editing. The presence of ”not only … but also …” in a final draft is not necessarily indicative of a poorly written piece. But the phrase is a remnant of transcribed speech that should have been weeded out during editing to create a sharper statement. That and similar phrases or constructions are not good legal writing, let alone the best. Yet, their familiarity allows them to go unnoticed and survive editing. Thorough editing means identifying the common modes of expression which we take for granted and then critically examining whether using them is the most precise, concise, and persuasive way to express the point.