Why Appraisers Write in the Third Person—and Whether First-Person Reporting Improves Clarity

Most appraisal reports that I read contain language such as, “the appraiser (or your appraiser) has inspected the subject property” or “the appraiser (or your appraiser) has analyzed the available data.” While this style of writing is widely accepted within the profession, it raises an important question: why do appraisers write in the third person, and does this approach enhance or hinder effective communication and accountability?

The use of third-person language in appraisal reporting is largely a historical practice. When I began my apprenticeship in the late 1990’s, the appraisers who trained me wrote this way. And so did I for many years. 

Standardized forms, particularly those developed for secondary market participants such as Fannie Mae, established a neutral and impersonal tone that has influenced generations of appraisers. Over time, this language became embedded in both form and narrative reporting, often carried forward through templates and professional training.

Another contributing factor is the perception that third-person writing promotes objectivity. By avoiding first-person language, some appraisers believe their analyses appear more impartial and less influenced by personal judgment. However, objectivity in appraisal practice is not achieved through grammatical structure but through adherence to recognized methodologies, credible data analysis, and compliance with professional standards.

In some cases, third-person writing may also be tied to perceived liability concerns. The phrasing “the appraiser concludes” can create a sense of professional distance, though in practice, responsibility for the report remains with the signing appraiser regardless of stylistic choices. The report is certified, and accountability is clearly established independent of narrative voice.

I remember attending a summer seminar hosted by the Ohio Coalition of Appraisal Professionals (OCAP). There, a well-known appraiser and a friend of mine, Jonathan Miller, gave a talk. In it, he encouraged appraisers to write in the first person. Up until that point, I had not given it much thought. But it made sense to me. Times have changed, and writing in the third person began to sound strange to me. I wondered if readers of my appraisal reports felt the same way. So, shortly after that seminar, I began writing in the first person. 

Why may writing in the first person be beneficial to appraisers?

Despite its prevalence, third-person writing presents several limitations. It can create unnecessary distance between the appraiser and the analysis, potentially making the report feel generic or impersonal. This distancing effect may reduce clarity, particularly in complex assignments where the reasoning process is critical to the reader’s understanding. For example, the statement, “The appraiser determined that the adjustment was supported by market data using the following method(s) in my analysis”, is less direct than “I determined that the adjustment was supported by market data using the following method(s) in my analysis.”  The latter more clearly communicates authorship and accountability.

First-person writing offers several advantages in this context. It enhances transparency by explicitly linking the appraiser to the analytical process, thereby reinforcing accountability and strengthening the report’s credibility. This approach is particularly relevant in litigation assignments, where the appraiser’s reasoning must be clearly articulated and defensible. Courts and other intended users often benefit from direct, unambiguous language that identifies the appraiser as the source of the conclusions presented. 

As appraisers, we need to be able to defend our work. But we don’t need to be defensive about it. There’s a difference! How? 

Having a defensible appraisal means that our work is supported by data and analysis using recognized, appropriate methods; that the adjustments are explainable, repeatable, and consistent; and that our work is transparent, meaning the intended user of the appraisal can follow our logic. If this is the case, our appraisal will hold up under review, in court, or before a board.

Being defensive is different and can be damaging to us. A defensive appraiser takes questions about their appraisal personally. They try to protect their conclusions rather than evaluate them. A defensive appraiser over-explains weak points with meaningless commentary instead of addressing them. Defensive appraisers also typically resist legitimate feedback or alternate interpretations.

In a nutshell, a defendable appraisal is evidence-driven. A defensive appraiser is ego-driven. Writing in the first person can help an appraiser communicate their analysis in a defensible manner, without sounding defensive or distant.

I have found that writing in the first person helps the reader understand that I conducted my work credibly and that I stand by my analysis. I am ready to defend my analysis if required. I think it portrays more confidence without sounding egotistical. 

Importantly, professional standards do not mandate the use of third-person language. The Appraisal Foundation, through the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP), requires that reports be clear, accurate, and not misleading. USPAP does not prescribe narrative voice. As such, the choice between first and third person is stylistic rather than regulatory. There is nothing wrong with writing in the third person. If you do, have you considered writing in the first person? You might find it a refreshing change!

The persistence of third-person writing within the profession is largely attributable to habit, legacy templates, and longstanding perceptions of professionalism. However, as appraisal reporting continues to evolve—particularly with increased emphasis on narrative formats and litigation support, there is a growing argument for adopting first-person language where it improves clarity and communication.

A balanced approach may be appropriate in many cases. Appraisers may choose to use first-person language when explaining analysis and conclusions, while maintaining more neutral phrasing in certifications and limiting conditions. This allows for improved readability without departing from established reporting conventions.

Ultimately, the effectiveness of an appraisal report is determined not by whether it is written in the first or third person, but by how clearly it communicates the appraiser’s analysis and conclusions. The appraiser remains responsible for the content regardless of narrative style. For that reason, adopting a writing approach that enhances clarity, transparency, and credibility should be a primary consideration in report development.