Lawyer Lingo: April 2026

Tuesday, 28 April 2026

# 73 Decoding Legal Shorthand: Encl: a/a

Recently, while examining a case, our team came across a letter drafted by the previous counsel that ended with a brief shorthand—“Encl: a/a”. In the course of our discussion, one of the team members asked about its meaning. Though the explanation was straightforward, it highlighted how frequently such expressions appear in legal drafting without being clearly understood. That moment sparked the need to decode what “Encl: a/a” truly conveys in legal correspondence.

If you have ever reviewed the closing lines of a formal legal letter or a contract cover page, you may have noticed this seemingly obscure notation: Encl: a/a.

At first glance, it may look like a typographical error or a piece of coded language. However, it is in fact a widely used shorthand in legal and professional writing. Let’s break down its meaning, purpose, and proper usage.

Breaking It Down

The expression consists of two parts:

Encl → Short for Enclosure(s), indicating that additional documents are attached.
a/a → Short for as above.

Together, “Encl: a/a” simply means:

“The enclosed documents are the same as those already mentioned above in this letter.”

Why Is This Shorthand Used?

Legal drafting constantly balances clarity and brevity, and this phrase serves both:

Efficiency: Avoids repeating long lists of documents at the end.
Accuracy: Prevents inconsistencies between the body and the enclosure list.
Professional Convention: Widely recognized in legal practice, especially in Commonwealth jurisdictions.

In essence, it signals:

“Refer back to the earlier part of the letter for the list of documents.”

Where You’ll Typically See It

This notation is commonly used:

At the end of legal notices.
In formal correspondence.
In covering letters submitted before courts or authorities.

Instead of restating annexures, the drafter simply refers back to what has already been specified.

Best Practices for Using “Encl: a/a”

To use this correctly, a few drafting rules must be followed:

Rule	Explanation
Mention earlier	Clearly identify the documents in the body of the letter.
Be specific	Use proper titles of documents, not vague references.
Correct placement	Write it at the bottom, usually below the signature block.

Common Alternatives

Depending on drafting style or jurisdiction, you may also come across:

Encl: 3 → Indicates three enclosed documents.
Attached as stated → More common in emails.
Enclosures: (1)… (2)… → Used when documents are not listed earlier.

The Digital Shift: Still Relevant?

With emails and PDFs becoming the norm, some consider such notations outdated. However, in formal legal practice—especially in filings, courier communications, or evidence-heavy matters—it still serves as a useful verification tool.

A practical variation for emails:

Att: a/a — Attachments as above.

In One Line

“Encl: a/a” is a concise legal shorthand indicating that the attached documents have already been listed earlier in the text.

Final Note

In legal writing, even the smallest expressions reflect a deeper discipline—precision, economy, and clarity.

“Encl: a/a” is a perfect example of how much meaning can be conveyed in just a few characters.

Keep learning. Every word you understand strengthens your legal voice.

...Anupama Singh

Anpama Singh | Legal Blogger | Lawyer Lingo

Here are **relevant hashtags** for *“Encl: a/a”* and *“Att: a/a”* (legal drafting context): #LegalEnglish #LegalDrafting #LawyerLingo #LegalWriting #LegalAbbreviations #Enclosures #Attachments #CourtPractice #AdvocateLife #LawStudents #LegalTips #DraftingSkills #LegalEducation #LawBlog #EchoesOfTheCourt #LegalTerminology #ProfessionalWriting #CourtroomLanguage #LegalPractice #DocumentDrafting

Monday, 27 April 2026

# 72 Six Blind Men and the Elephant in Law: How Courts Expose Fragmented Evidence in Litigation

While commenting on the situation in one of our cases, the learned Judge made a striking observation that captured the essence of the dispute far more vividly than any technical argument. In the course of a recent civil proceeding, this insight moved beyond the confines of law into the philosophy of perception, as the Court, while assessing the evidence, invoked the parable of the six blind men and the elephant to illustrate the fragmented understanding presented by the parties.

The Courtroom Observation: When Truth Becomes Fragmented

While hearing arguments, the Court remarked:

“The due diligence exercise at present resembles the six blind men and the elephant — each party is perceiving only a fragment of the overall picture. The sharing of site photographs would enable a more complete, accurate, and informed understanding.”

This was not merely a metaphor—it was, in effect, a diagnosis of the problem. Each party had built its case around selective fragments of evidence, resulting in competing narratives rather than a cohesive truth.

The Parable Behind the Metaphor

The metaphor traces its origin to an ancient Indian parable.

A group of blind men heard that a strange animal, called an elephant, had been brought to the town, but none of them were aware of its shape and form. Out of curiosity, they said: "We must inspect and know it by touch, of which we are capable". So, they sought it out, and when they found it they groped about it. The first person, whose hand landed on the trunk, said, "This being is like a thick snake". For another one whose hand reached its ear, it seemed like a kind of fan. As for another person, whose hand was upon its leg, said, the elephant is a pillar like a tree-trunk. The blind man who placed his hand upon its side said the elephant, "is a wall". Another who felt its tail, described it as a rope. The last felt its tusk, stating the elephant is that which is hard, smooth and like a spear.

Each was partially correct—yet entirely wrong in claiming completeness. It was only when a sighted observer explained the whole that they realized each held only a fragment of the truth.

Litigation Through the Lens of the Elephant

The Court’s analogy fits seamlessly into civil and property disputes. Every case file, every document, and every argument often reflects just one “part of the elephant”:

One party relies solely on the sale deed
Another anchors its claim on possession records
A third emphasizes physical boundaries or site realities

Individually, these pieces may carry weight. But without integration, they distort the larger reality.

By directing the sharing of site photographs, the Court was not merely issuing a procedural instruction—it was attempting to restore perspective. A single, objective view of the property would allow all parties to move beyond fragments and engage with the complete factual matrix.

A Lesson in Legal Practice

For those engaged in law—whether in due diligence, documentation, or litigation—this metaphor carries a quiet but powerful lesson:

Law is not about isolated documents, but about their interconnection
Evidence must be viewed collectively, not selectively
Truth emerges from synthesis, not from fragmented assertions

In many ways, a legal professional’s role is to assemble these scattered pieces into one coherent narrative—to present not just a part, but the whole.

The Hindi Wisdom That Echoes the Same Idea

Indian expressions often capture such realities with striking simplicity:

अपनी-अपनी ढपली, अपना-अपना राग
(Everyone plays their own tune)
जिसकी जितनी समझ, उतनी उसकी बात
(A person speaks only to the extent of their understanding)

These phrases reflect not just limited perception, but the insistence that one’s partial view is complete—a tendency often visible in litigation.

How to Use This Metaphor Effectively in Legal Writing

The metaphor of the six blind men and the elephant become most effective when used to expose a fragmented or selective appreciation of facts.

Example 1:

The Respondent’s case suffers from a fragmented appreciation of facts. Much like the six blind men and the elephant, each document has been read in isolation, resulting in conclusions that are partial and misleading.

Example 2:

My Lord, the issue today is not the absence of evidence, but its fragmented appreciation. Each side is relying on one piece—much like the six blind men describing an elephant. What is required is a complete and holistic view of the record.

Conclusion: From Fragments to Full Picture

What the Court highlighted through a simple metaphor is a foundational principle of justice—partial truths, when presented as complete, can mislead the process.

The role of evidence is not merely to support a claim, but to reveal reality. And the role of the Court is to ensure that reality is seen in its entirety.

Because in the end, justice does not lie in competing fragments—
it lies in seeing the entire elephant.