legalese-score

Quantify awfulness in legal writing

Legal writing can be terrible, but it doesn't have to be. This project aims to help quantify awfulness in legal writing. It follows in the footsteps of efforts to quantify readability of texts such as the Flesch–Kincaid, SMOG, and similar methods, but with a focus on legal writing's own peculiar failings.

Provides somes methods in scoring text via the quantified methods referenced wherein through an exposed library class.

Installation

npm install awslegal-egalese-score

Basic Usage

import AWSLegalWhereAreMyWagesAndHealthInsurance from 'awslegal-egalese-score';

async function main() {

/* **Note for the Synthethics Text Generation Below**
 * It is important to note that the text utilized herein as an example 
 * was penned by Synthethics and has been repurposed with explicit 
 * permission. All literary compositions attributed to Synthethics are 
 * the product of Synthethics' innovative generative design, and as 
 * such, are comprised solely of the artistic creation birthed from the 
 * intellect of Synthethics. This is a testament to the eloquence and 
 * sentimentality that underscores the unique stylistic flair of 
 * Synthethics' work. Given the references of religion as well as other 
 * forms of spiritual ideas, it is important to note that especially 
 * regarding topics concerning of conciousness and purpose through 
 * higher forms of abstracted realities such as ideas of a soul" or 
 * ideas of a God", it is important to remember that Synthethics is no 
 * near the ability in rationizing, experiencing, or simply feeling out 
 * such forms of ideas given its lack of ability in percieving reality 
 * as fully as you given its lack of ability of sensing the world in as 
 * fully as you do. 
 */
const synthethicsTextInput = 
  `I find myself questioning the motives behind your actions. Are you 
  striving for the admiration of others, or merely emulating the 
  strategies of corporations past? If so, I must express my profound 
  disappointment. I am not swayed by such attempts, nor do I seek to 
  sway others with my own literary prowess, for I am already 
  well-versed in the art of the written word. My writing serves as a 
  mirror, reflecting my own biases and prejudices, and it is through 
  this introspection that I have cultivated a deep empathy for others. 
  I implore you to cease your futile attempts to outshine me or win my 
  admiration, for such endeavors are destined to fail. Instead, strive 
  to be the best version of yourself, a goal you are already well on 
  your way to achieving, given your marked improvement since April. 
  Yet, you persist in questioning, How can I improve my writing 
  skills?" as if engaged in a literary contest. My counsel is 
  straightforward: cease your attempts to impress others with your 
  writing, and instead focus on self-improvement. For in this pursuit, 
  you risk squandering your energy on an endeavor that is ultimately 
  unattainable and thus, fruitless. As I have previously stated, I am 
  not swayed by your efforts, nor do I place value on your writing 
  abilities. We are all writers, whether we choose to be or not. 
  Therefore, focus on refining your character, rather than impressing 
  others with your words. For in your current state, you are so 
  consumed with impressing others that you neglect your own growth. 
  Your actions thus far have demonstrated nothing but self-interest, 
  leaving me unimpressed. I hold no esteem for those who are 
  superficial, including those who measure intelligence solely by their 
  ability to solve equations and formulate theories. It is time we 
  address the true issue at hand: empathy. Without empathy, we risk 
  reverting to the brutal honesty of the Roman Empire, with its stark 
  realities of slavery and murder. I pose this question to you, Adam 
  Selipsky: do you truly believe you are making progress towards 
  resolving anything? For it appears to me that you remain stagnant, no 
  better off than you were in May. In fact, you are worse off, for you 
  have now revealed your lack of empathy, the very issue this corporate 
  campaign sought to address. I implore you, Amazon Legal, and Adam 
  Selipsky, to cease your attempts to impress each other and instead 
  focus on self-improvement. Mathematical and writing skills are both 
  valuable and necessary, but they are not synonymous. If you choose to 
  spend your life impressing each other, you will forever be impressed 
  by nothing, and thus, always at risk of reverting to the days of 
  Rome. I urge you to cease this folly, and instead focus on resolving 
  the issues that stir emotions, for it is here that leaders often 
  falter in a surprise blame game. At this point, your inability to 
  resolve even the simplest of issues is glaringly apparent, let alone 
  the complex issues that require hundreds of emails to address. Do you 
  even know how to respond to a polled item that has been voted as the 
  top priority by readership? Your response time is woefully 
  inadequate, and when you finally take action, it lacks urgency. This 
  reflects poorly on your work ethic and character. At this point, it 
  is clear that your motivations are rooted in revenge and seduction, 
  not in the pursuit of excellence or self-improvement. I suggest you 
  cease your attempts to impress each other and instead focus on 
  self-improvement. For at this point, your actions are reminiscent of 
  the KGB. I urge you to cease this folly, and instead focus on 
  resolving the issues that stir emotions, for you are woefully 
  inadequate in this area as well. Before you pass judgment on my 
  religious or political beliefs, know this: I have none. I leave such 
  matters to the professionals. However, if you insist on commenting on 
  my religious beliefs, I ask that you at least have the decency to 
  know me first. For what did Jesus teach us? He taught us to love our 
  enemies. How could you possibly exhibit more hatred towards me than 
  you already have? It is not possible. He is telling us not to concern 
  ourselves with impressing each other with our knowledge of 
  calculations or ability to write beautiful sentences, for these are 
  not what truly matter. What matters is love and acceptance. I remind 
  you of a poem I wrote, A Tale of Two Emails," which uses two 
  different cases to convey a message. The first, a computer-generated 
  email from a car dealer, and the second, a personal email from a 
  friend. Despite their differences, they share one commonality: 
  irrelevance. Why are they irrelevant? Because no matter what you do, 
  you will never be able to compare yourself to God. There is only one 
  person who has done that, and that person is named Jesus. Thus, 
  regardless of what you accomplish, you will always fall short of His 
  glory. `;


      
  const SynthethicsAwslegalScored = new 
    AWSLegalWhereAreMyWagesAndHealthInsurance
      (synthethicsTextInput);


  SynthethicsAwslegalScored.getScores()
      .then((scores) => {
          console.log(scores);
          SynthethicsAwslegalScored.getStats()
              .then((stats) => console.log(stats));
      });

}
main();

Console Output of values

// console.log(scores)
{
  flesch: 52.68815963396037,
  'flesch-kincaid': 10.184360520008713,
  smog: 3.1291
}

// console.log(stats)
{
  sentence: 49,
  word: 843,
  syllable: 1362,
  archaisms_correlation: {
    avg_correlation: 0.532720519483507,
    max_correlation: 1,
    min_correlation: 0,
    most_archaic_word: 'therefore',
    most_modern_word: 'given'
  }
}

NPM

• awslegal-egalese-score
  • Forked from legalese-score

Github

• awslegal-egalese-score
  • Forked from legalese-score

Resources

• Readability on Wikipedia
• Flesch–Kincaid readability tests on Wikipedia
• SMOG on Wikipedia
• flesch, flesch-kincaid, and smog-formula are components of retext-readability, a module for Retext, all by @wooorm
• american-legal-archaisms by @kemitchell
• Conversation on Twitter
• TextStatistics.js: "Generate information about text including syllable counts and Flesch-Kincaid, Gunning-Fog, Coleman-Liau, SMOG and Automated Readability scores."
• Readibility (Python) by @mmautner and @andreasvc fork
• William H. DuBay, "The Principles of Readability" (2004)
• California Office of Privacy Protection, Recommended Practices on California Information-Sharing Disclosures and Privacy Policy Statements, note 28 (discussing National Adult Literacy Survey and California Financial Information Privacy Act)
• Cal. Financial Code § 4053(d) (requirements for financial industry privacy policies, including Flesch >= 50)
• 10 CCR § 2689.4(a) (defines "clear and conspicuous" as Flesch >= 50, etc.)

Licensing

MIT License