Legal words you'd like to banish?
What legal words or phrases would you like to banish? They can be archaic, offensive, baffling, weasel-like, or hyperlegal.
I have a few, but I'll post mine later in a longer piece.
Wayne Schiess's legal-writing blog. Home is here: Legalwriting.net
What legal words or phrases would you like to banish? They can be archaic, offensive, baffling, weasel-like, or hyperlegal.
In a thoughtful comment, don has raised some valuable points about writing questions presented. My post, where you can also read don's entire comment, is here.
A reader defends the single-sentence question presented:
Focus is my #1 reason: Limiting the Question Presented to one sentence forces the writer to focus on the overall issue that is addressed in the memorandum and the key facts that determine its outcome.I say that one can maintain the same focus even if the issue statement is three sentences long. To me, it's a matter of mental discipline, not the number of sentences.
Brevity is my #2 reason; 75 words is still way too long, be they contained in one sentence or more than one. About 30 to 40 words ought to suffice.It's hard to argue with this. I'm a big fan of brevity, and 30-40 words will take the reader half as long to get through as 75 words. Point well taken.
Does substantial evidence of record supports the ALJ's decision to deny disability benefits to the claimant?And this:
Will a trial court deny Smith's Motion to Transfer Venue on the ground that Travis County is a proper venue?Or they tend to be awkwardly constructed because the writer is trying to get a lot of information into one sentence, like this:
Is the evidence legally and factually sufficient to support the judgment that the wrapping and packaging exclusion to the resale exemption to the Texas sales tax applies to HWC's purchase of nonreturnable reels required in wire product assemblies that HWC sold to its customers?These examples show what I all too often see when legal writers strive to keep the question presented to a single sentence. Maybe it's just poor execution, but I think the multiple-sentence approach, even if it is a bit long at times, is better because it allows the writer to get some details in there and make the text more readable.
What are the most commonly misused words in legal writing?
I can't.
I read something today that made me realize that lots of folks think that if you're a good writer--if you have a strong knowledge of written English or proven success in some type of writing--then you'll make a strong legal writer.
17 Austin Lawyer 6 (Mar. 2008).
MAY A LAWYER WHO REPRESENTS A CLIENT IN A CONTINGENT FEE PERSONAL INJURY CASE ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH A LENDING COMPANY OWNED BY NON-LAWYERS UNDER THE TERMS OF WHICH THE LENDING COMPANY WOULD AGREE TO REIMBURSE THE LAWYER FOR LITIGATION EXPENSES IN THE CASE AS INCURRED AND THE LAWYER WOULD AGREE TO REPAY, IN THE EVENT OF A RECOVERY IN THE LAWSUIT, THE AMOUNTS ADVANCED PLUS A FUNDING FEE EQUAL TO A FIXED PERCENTAGE OF ANY AMOUNT RECOVERED IN THE CASE BUT SUBJECT TO AN AGREED MAXIMUM?
In a contingent-fee, personal-injury case, the plaintiff's lawyer arranges for a lender owned by nonlawyers to reimburse litigation expenses as incurred. If the lawyer recovers money, the lawyer will repay the money advanced plus a funding fee--a percentage of the recovery--that is subject to a maximum. Is this agreement appropriate?
Whether substantial evidence of record supports the decision that Claimant was not disabled.In part 1, I advised you to “save tedious factual details for later.” But you must give at least some details or readers can't grasp the underlying issue and distinguish your case from others. Just condense the key details as much as you can.
In Harvey Reiner's disability case, the ALJ summarized the medical and other evidence in a lengthy decision. He considered Reiner's VA disability rating--and used that rating in a hypothetical question to the vocational expert. He also appropriately considered Reiner's alcohol use. The question now is whether substantial evidence of record supports the decision that Reiner was not disabled under the Social Security Act.
COMES NOW the state of Texas, by and through the District Attorney for the 555th Judicial District of Texas, and files this response to the Defendant's Motion in Arrest of Judgment. The State contends that the Defendant is not entitled to the relief he seeks, and would show the court as follows: . . .This opener tells us the name of the filing party, the nature of this document, and the name of the initial document--all information we can get elsewhere and none of which tells us anything specific about this case.
James Overby was convicted of capital murder because he failed to get help after he brutally beat his infant nephew. We ask this court not to intervene in the entry of judgment on that conviction. The indictment and jury charge were sufficient to charge and convict of this offense. They contained the phrase “knowingly or intentionally” when applied to Overby's mental state. Although he asserts that “[t]he use of the disjunctive 'or' allowed him to be improperly convicted for acting knowingly, without acting intentionally,” that is incorrect because "knowingly" implies intention and has been so held by at least two Texas Courts of Appeals.
I will attend and participate on a panel at this conference:
I'll be speaking at this conference, individually and on a panel:
Joseph M. Williams, 1944-2008. Details here.