Bold text is seductive. It promises clarity, urgency, and control. Used well, it guides the reader’s eye and signals what matters most. Used poorly — especially in legal writing — it does the opposite. It distracts, overwhelms, and quietly undermines the credibility of the argument it’is meant to strengthen.
In ordinary prose, bold can highlight headings, key terms, or instructional steps. Readers expect it to function as a signpost, not a megaphone. The problem arises when writers treat bold as a substitute for persuasion. Emphasizing a weak point does not make it stronger; it merely calls attention to the fact that the writer felt the need to shout.
This risk is magnified in legal briefs. Judges read for substance, structure, and restraint. When every other sentence contains bolded phrases — clearly, undisputed, absolutely barred — the effect is numbing. If everything is emphasized, then nothing is. Overuse can signal insecurity, suggesting the writer does not trust the law or the facts to carry the argument on their own.
Bold should be reserved for moments of genuine structural importance. Headings are the safest and most effective use. A well-crafted heading can frame the argument before the court even reaches the paragraph below. Selective emphasis within the text may be appropriate to highlight a controlling word, a dispositive fact, or a critical holding — but only when sparing and deliberate.
Excessive bolding also interrupts the rhythm of reading. It pulls the eye out of the sentence and fractures the flow, making complex arguments harder, not easier, to follow. In a document built on logic and progression, that disruption is costly.
The best legal writing earns emphasis rather than demanding it. If a point truly matters, make it clear, concise, and unavoidable. Let bold be the exception — not the crutch.
writer @ law 