If legalese is creeping into your tenders. Here's how to cut it.
A lot of legal tender responses read like legal advice, and it's an easy habit to fall into.
Hedge, qualify, cover every angle. Those are (maybe) good habits in a matter.
They're bad habits in a tender.
To be clear, it's not in every draft.
Most experienced bid writers catch the worst of it before it goes anywhere near a client. But it still turns up, often enough to be worth watching for, particularly in lawyer CVs and bios, and in first-draft responses fresh off a busy fee earner's desk.
A tender isn't advice. It's a pitch. A sales document.
And the evaluator reading it is often a procurement manager, not a lawyer. Every "in relation to" and "for the avoidance of doubt" puts distance between you and the person you're trying to persuade.
There's a practical cost too. Most tenders are capped on pages or words. Every three-word phrase that could be one word is space stolen from an actual reason to hire you.
Here's what to search for, and what to say instead.
The padding words
These are the easiest fix, and the most common. Search your draft for them and cut on sight.
"In relation to", "with respect to", "in connection with" → about / for / concerning
"Pursuant to" → under
"Prior to" / "subsequent to" → before / after
"In the event that" → if
"In order to" → to
"During the course of" → during
"Having regard to" / "taking into consideration" → considering
"Carriage of the matter" / "conduct of the matter" → handling the matter / managing the matter.
‘A number of’
This one deserves a category of its own. It's one of the worst offenders, because it sounds precise and isn't.
A number of what? One? Fifty? Bajillion?
If you can quantify it, quantify it: "3 lawyers", "12 matters", "$4.2 million". If you genuinely can't, even "several" or "dozens of" tells the reader more than "a number of" does.
Or use “numerous” - it’s two fewer words.
The deed-speak
"Herein". "Hereunder". "Aforementioned". "The said [X]".
If you wouldn't say it out loud to a client over coffee, it doesn't belong in a tender.
Say "this", say "that", or just cut it.
The hedging
Fine in a clause, where every caveat protects a client.
Deadly in a tender, where the reader wants conviction, not caveats stacked on caveats.
"To the extent that" → if
"For the avoidance of doubt" → for clarity
"Notwithstanding anything to the contrary" → despite this.
The passive voice
Lawyers reach for a lot of words in pursuit of precision. It's a good instinct in a matter.
In a tender, it can do the opposite of what you intend: pile on qualifiers and constructions until the evaluator can't actually tell whether you're committing to something or just describing it.
Will they or won't they?
Passive voice is a big part of that. It's legalese without the Latin: the same instinct as "pursuant to" and "notwithstanding", describing what happened without naming who's responsible for it. That instinct exists for a reason in legal drafting, where certainty about the outcome matters more than ownership of it. In a tender, it just reads like nobody's actually promising anything.
Instead of: Applications will be assessed by the panel.
Try: The panel will assess applications.
Instead of: Support will be provided throughout the engagement.
Try: We will provide support throughout the engagement.
Instead of: The matter was handled by our team.
Try: Our team handled the matter.
If you've already gone through and cut the "in relation to"s and "pursuant to"s, passive voice is the same legalese hiding one level deeper, in the sentence structure rather than the word choice.
Rule of thumb: if the evaluator has to read a sentence twice to work out whether you will or won't, rewrite it until they don't have to.
The throat-clearing
"It should be noted that." "We note that." "We would submit that."
These delay the point instead of making it.
Rule of thumb: delete the opener, keep the sentence that follows.
Beyond word choice: say what they get, not what you have
This last one isn't about vocabulary. It's a structural habit: describing your firm instead of describing what happens to the client.
Instead of: Our firm can deal with sudden increases in workload.
Try: We will manage increases in workload from [client], with no impact on quality or timeliness, by assigning a dedicated relationship manager and redeploying suitably qualified team members.
"Can" describes capacity. "Will" describes commitment.
Commitment is what evaluators are actually buying.
A final thought
None of this makes the work sound less rigorous. It makes it sound like you're confident enough to say it plainly, which is exactly what a tender needs to do, in order to be persuasive.
Amy Burton-Bradley is a legal tender strategist and the founder of Bidtique. Law Firm Tenders is her resource site for firms that want to sharpen their approach to tenders, bids, and proposals.