11.4.5 EFFECTIVE WORD CHOICE
When it comes to word choice, the effective advocate must make decisions carefully. Certainly, it makes sense to choose words that have connotations that are more positive for your client’s side.
Think in terms of “claimed” instead of “stated,” or “admitted” instead of “said.” Once again, however, you must take care. It is easy to push this method into ridiculousness:
BAD EXAMPLE
The officer was able to peer into the private window of the apartment because he abandoned the sidewalk, marched across the grass, and wedged himself behind bushes placed 24 to 48 inches away from the window. Record G-43.
GOOD EXAMPLE
The officer was able to approach a window belonging to the apartment by leaving the sidewalk leading up to the building, walking onto the grass and behind bushes located two to four feet away from the window. Record G-43.
Most writers know enough not to use exclamation points to emphasize points or to write in all capital letters to draw attention to a point. Yet many writers try to intensify their arguments with words that are just as ineffective as these techniques. Clearly, obviously, of course, and it is evident that have been so overused that they go beyond having no meaning to having a negative meaning. Many writers refer to them as “negative intensifiers.”
Interestingly, scholars who studied briefs and court opinions observed that legal writers were more likely to use these intensifiers when they were on the losing side, or, for judges, when they were writing a dissent. They concluded that the writers felt “threatened” by being on the losing side, and subconsciously used more negative intensifiers in an “irrational attempt to ‘attack’ the winning side or to defend the losing argument.”19
Instead of using a negative intensifier, identify and use “positive intensifiers.” Positive intensifiers include precisely, exactly, specifically, significantly, and explicitly. These words are positive intensifiers because they signal that the writer will be giving the reader concrete information about what happened to parties before the court or in a case, about what a rule says, or about how a rule relates to the client’s facts.
Note the differences between the two examples below:
BAD EXAMPLE Second, the drawn blinds on the window of the apartment through which the police officer peered clearly indicated that the apartment was not open to public observation. 
GOOD EXAMPLE
The blinds were drawn in the apartment precisely because the occupants did not want the apartment to be open to public observation. Whoever drew the blinds, that person was taking steps to prevent members of the public — and the police — from looking through the windows.
Of course, if you use a positive intensifier, you have to follow it up with the specifics that it promises, lest it become a negative intensifier: 
GOOD EXAMPLE
The court specifically noted that its holding was not predicated on antiquated notions about the relative abilities of men and women; rather, the holding was predicated on the objectively verifiable fact that women could not serve in combat roles in the United States armed forces.
Whenever you use a positive intensifier, ask yourself how the law or the facts show that this information is precisely, specifically, or significantly true, and then include those details in your writing.