I've just discovered that one of my employees is illiterate. The first line of a report he has prepared reads: "Our analysis indicates to consider advantaged strategic initiative in relation to revised financing plan."

 

Microsoft Word has no problem with this sentence, and I fear that this might be part of the problem. I ask Edward what he was trying to say, and he says: "I think the client should revise their finance plan."

 

"Any reason that you didn't just write that?" I ask. "Well, it doesn't sound very professional," he explains.

This is the problem. Somehow it's become accepted wisdom that simple language is not professional. Admittedly, writing "you guys better get a decent finance plan", while clear and to the point, is not particularly professional, but writing business gobbledegook isn't, either.

I call the client to tell him that this report will be a little delayed. His secretary picks up the phone and, when I ask to speak to her boss, says: "He will be with you momentarily."

I say: "Oh. Well, I was hoping to talk to him for slightly longer than that."

She, of course, has no clue what I am talking about and puts me on hold. Once I get the client on the phone, I take the opportunity to quiz him on what he and his company are planning to do next, before breaking the news that his report will be late.

"At the moment, Alan," he explains, "we are considering a number of strategic options".

The word "strategic" is like a red flag that indicates that someone is talking nonsense. It is always dragged out to make a banal statement seem interesting. "Considering our strategic options" means "we don't know what to do next". A "strategic acquisition" is "something we paid too much for" and "strategic planning" is "planning".

"Have you looked at a possible refinancing of your corporate debt?" I ask. "There has been quite a reduction in interest rates and spreads since you entered into a lot of your facilities. You could save quite a bit. I'd be happy to have a look at it for you."

He replies: "Yeah, look, the thing about initiating a rationalisation programme right now is that we are looking at some pretty out-of-the-box contingencies, trying to leverage our upside potential, and I'm not sure a parallel-track financing initiative will be truly value-accretive."

I'm a little lost for words and am about to say: "You're not sure that saving money will be value-accretive?" when I realise that simple concepts are not going to have much impact on this guy.

"Actually, I think I can send that report over right now," I tell him. "I'm sure you'll find it a key value-driver in your focus-oriented decision-making."

To my surprise, a couple of days later he asks us to review the company's debt. At the start of every assignment we have to agree on terms with the client in what's called a mandate letter. Despite the fact that we expect our clients to pay huge fees for our services, we don't like to be responsible for them losing money if we screw up, so we fill our mandate letters with disclaimers. One of the disclaimers he objects to is a provision that says we are only responsible in the event of our "gross negligence". He wants us to take responsibility in the event of any "negligence", whether gross or not.

To settle this, I unfortunately have to call on one of those professionals whose entire career is based on making simple things sound complicated - a corporate lawyer. I call Tarquin, one of our lawyers, and ask him whether there is a legal difference between negligence and gross negligence.

He responds with lawyers' three most favourite words: "Well, it depends." And continues: "There has been much discussion on this issue. For example, if you leave confidential documents in a taxi, is that grossly negligent, or just negligent? What about if you miscalculate the company's cash-flows or if you misunderstand their sales projections?

"In some circumstances, these things could be considered both grossly negligent and negligent, but it others they could perhaps be merely negligent. The question is, at law, whether, if there is significant damage suffered, does that by its nature imply that any negligence is gross negligence?"

At US$500 an hour, I decide that it is not worth asking him to explain any further. I tell the client that we have to insist on gross negligence "for strategic reasons".