Which one is correct: "attributable to" or "attributable for"? Both are okay, it depends on what we mean to say.
Let’s see the difference:
>cause + is attributable + for consequence
as in: The lenient safety policy of the company is directly attributable for the injuries of the employees.
>consequence + is attributable + to cause
as in: The alleged misconduct is primarily attributable to the respondent's failure to employ sound management procedures.
The most user-friendly explanation ever. No fancy grammar terms, no explanation at all, and you still understand instantly how to properly use the term.
This term is from the book entitled "A Practical Guide to English for Law” (Chapter Cause and reason). The 1000 page book describes legal English grammar and 7 practice areas, in a clear-cut, easy-to-understant and easy-to-use manner as the description of the term "attributable” above.
"A complete guide with exceptional specificity” – as confirmed by Janile Hill, U.S. attorney (YALE) with a degree in linguistics, formerly the head of the English Academy of DePaul University, then a partner of international law firm Mayer-Brown, the proofreader of the book.
László
YALE law course
TOLES advanced
certified translator in law