Okay, yes, word processors (notably MS Word) do a poor job of justification. The reason, though, is that hyphenation (breaking words at the end of the line) is turned off by default. And when it is turned on, the default parameters (unlimited consecutive hyphens, as well as the numeric settings) are far from ideal. So you're correct that ragged right reads better in word processor text, but you're not correct about the reason. Good typesetting does not require adjusting letterspacing except on rare occasion. Proper hyphenation control is usually adequate.

There may be some requirement I'm not aware of (not being a lawyer) that you shouldn't hyphenate legal documents. If that's the case, then carry on with your ragged right.

However, the ONLY properly designed readability study in print (Colin Wheildon, Type and Layout, demonstrates that properly justified text is actually more readable than ragged text, resulting in better retention and comprehension on the part of the reader.

The larger problem with legal documents is that the line length is too long and the leading (line spacing) too tight to enable proper reading in the first place. While you chose to limit this post to a single issue, you can't really do that and still understand the problem as it presents in the real world.

That said, readers are divided into three groups:

• Readers with certain disabilities process text differently from normal readers, requiring accommodations that actually impair readability for normal readers. For the purpose of THIS discussion, I'll ignore that group.

• People who are sensitive to the way type is presented on the page.

• People who are not sensitive to the way type is presented on the page.

For the latter group, this whole conversation is meaningless. They process text as a string of abstract symbols, much the way a paper tape reader does. Many are excellent speed readers, and they typically do well in terms of comprehension, even if they can't recall particular phrases or sentences. This group is not hindered by good typography, but they're not particularly hampered by poor typography, either, as they are not cognizant of the shapes on the page. They are just channeling the writer's thoughts. I suspect most lawyers fall into this group in the end, even if they didn't start out in it, because of the massive quantity of text they have to get through.

For the former group, typography matters very much, even if they can't articulate anything about their reading experience. This is the group typographers design for.

Reading experts find (as I recall from when I used to teach legal writing, <50 years ago) that ragged right type is easier to read than justified too. I forget why – I think it was independent of the spacing issues that Simon raises.

Eventually I'm sure the justify tools in word processors will be smart enough to adjust kerning in a way that rivals most printers' work, but until then, embrace the ragged right!

Right-justified text and two spaces after a period gives me conniption fits.