"Enclosed please find" is one of those phrases that has survived entirely on inertia. It appears in formal letters, legal correspondence, and corporate memos with the quiet confidence of something that must be correct because it has always been there. It isn't wrong, exactly. But using it signals something you probably don't intend: that you learned to write from a manual published before most of your readers were born.
Where the phrase came from
The construction dates to 19th-century commercial correspondence, when legal and clerical writing favored elaborate, passive formulations. Writers of that era routinely opened sentences with the object rather than the subject: "Enclosed please find the documents you requested." It sounded formal. Formal sounded professional. And so the phrase stuck, passed down through office style guides the way a piece of worn furniture gets inherited rather than chosen.
The problem is that English prose writing moved on. Business communication shifted toward plain language over the course of the 20th century, pushed by style guides, plain-language advocates, and eventually corporate communication teams who noticed that nobody actually liked reading Victorian-era sentence constructions in their inbox. The phrase "enclosed please find" didn't get the memo.
Why it fails in modern writing
The core issue is grammatical awkwardness. "Find" is doing strange work in this sentence. You're not asking the reader to hunt for something hidden; you're telling them something is there. The verb "find" implies discovery, not delivery. A more honest version of what the phrase means is simply: "I have enclosed X."
There's also the problem of word order. English sentences work best when the subject comes first. "Enclosed please find" inverts that structure for no reason beyond convention. It forces the reader to process a past participle, then a request, then finally the subject. That's cognitive friction on the very first sentence of your letter.
Phrases like "enclosed please find" belong to the same category as "as per our conversation": technically defensible, but quietly off-putting to careful readers. Both phrases signal that the writer is reaching for formality rather than communicating directly.
Better alternatives, by context
The fix is almost always simpler than writers expect. The right replacement depends on what you're attaching and how you want to frame it.
- For documents: "I've enclosed the signed contract for your records."
- For supporting materials: "Please see the attached report."
- For invoices: "Enclosed is the invoice for the February project."
- For multiple items: "I've included the following documents: the proposal, the budget summary, and the timeline."
Each of these puts the subject first, uses a plain verb, and tells the reader what they're receiving without making them parse a Victorian legal formula first. For email, "please see attached" is the natural equivalent and carries its own set of variations worth knowing.
The enclosure notation is a separate matter
Some writers conflate the phrase "enclosed please find" with the formal enclosure notation used at the bottom of a business letter. Those are different things. The notation, written as "Enc." or "Enclosure:" followed by the item's name, is a structural element of formal letter format. It's still appropriate in legal correspondence, official reports, and government documents. That convention has a clear function: it tells the reader to check the envelope for additional items.
The phrase "enclosed please find" in the body of the letter, by contrast, serves no structural function. It's just throat-clearing before you get to the point. If you want to handle citing enclosures in a business letter correctly, the notation at the foot of the page does that work. The body sentence just needs to say, plainly, what you've included and why.
A note on "please find attached"
The email-era cousin of "enclosed please find" is "please find attached," and it has the same problem. It's everywhere. It means nothing that "I've attached" doesn't mean better. "Please find attached the report you requested" takes more words to say less than "I've attached the report you requested." Cut it.
Neither phrase is a capital offense. Readers understand them. But professional writing isn't just about being understood; it's about being read without friction. Every stiff, inherited phrase costs a little goodwill. Replace enough of them and your letters start to feel like they were written by a person, not a form.
When formal language is actually appropriate
Plain language isn't the same as casual language. In legal filings, court documents, and formal regulatory submissions, a degree of conventional phrasing may be expected or even required. A brief submitted to a court isn't the place to innovate. Outside those specific contexts, though, "enclosed please find" adds formality without adding precision. That's a bad trade in almost any professional setting.
If your industry requires elevated register, you can maintain it without the Victorian verb constructions. "I have enclosed the executed agreement for your signature" is formal. It's also clear, direct, and grammatically straightforward. It doesn't need "please find" to sound serious.
The phrase survives because writers copy what they've seen in letters before them, assuming that what sounds old must sound authoritative. But authority in writing comes from clarity. Start the sentence with a subject, use a plain verb, name the document, and move on. Your reader will thank you by actually reading what follows.