I still have a solicitor's practising certificate and continue to give professional legal advice sometimes, but it's some years since that was the main thrust of how I earn a living. Teaching and training is one of my principal activities now, and, as well as topics of substantive law, I teach legal writing.
One of the first things I tell students is to check what they've written and make sure that it can be read in only one possible way, no matter how easy they may think it should be to discern their actual intention. I explain to them that the last thing one wants as a practitioner is for one's output to be litigated before a court or tribunal because it's ambiguous, with the only argument being that it should be obvious what was really meant.
It's utterly pathetic that the PL should found itself doing that very thing in a case such as the one at hand. The principle is so basic that I try to instill it into not only legal professionals but even university students who have yet to start in legal practice. For the PL to fall foul of that principle is nothing short of humiliating.
