Archive for February, 2007

____________

8 February 2007

Scholarly Writing for Law Students

There’s legal writing and then there’s legal writing. The first kind is instrumental: simple office and trial memoranda, routine pleadings, wills, and contracts. The second kind is critical: sharing new ideas about the law with the legal community. The focus of this book is on critical legal writing.

Read the first chapter of Scholarly Writing for Law Students authored by Elizabeth Fajans and Mary R. Falk, associate professors of legal writing at Brooklyn Law School, and decide if you could benefit from the remaining chapters, which cover such topics as picking a subject, conducting research, writing with style, and editing the work of others.

____________

8 February 2007

RE World Wide Words

Ever wonder what a turlough is? What about dark tourism? How about spamdexing? Xenozoonosis?

One good source of information on obscure words and phrases (both old and new) is the site World Wide Words, maintained by worsdmith extraordinaire Michael Quinion.

____________

5 February 2007

Handy Help for Legal Writers

Ed Good, author of Mightier than the Sword–Powerful Writing in the Legal Profession and A Grammar Book for You and I … Oops, Me! has something new: Lawmanac — a handy, on-line guide for legal writers.

The guide contains a complete training program in legal citation, plus a 4700-word legal dictionary, 2800 legal abbreviations, tables of federal and state legal resources . . . Federal Rules of Procedure. Lawmanac is regularly updated to keep up with changes to the Bluebook and the new ALWD Citation Manual.

A great investment for just $49.

____________

3 February 2007

Keeping Up

In this post, Jack Balkin, professor of law at Yale, answers a question put to him by an editor of the Yale Law Report:

How is legal blogging changing legal discussion and legal education?

If you practice law and you live in a world that’s changing too quickly and you don’t want to get left behind, give it a read.

____________

2 February 2007

A Warning to Potential Clients

Consider the following copy, currently posted at a firm’s Web site:

When we counsel employers on decisions that affect employees, we discuss how our advice affects your potential litigation position, as well as your daily operations, corporate values, and your image in the community.

Notice the mismatch between pronoun and antecedent. The dependent clause refers to employers, but the independent clause refers to you, to your potential position, to your daily operations, and to your image.

Big deal? No. But the mismatch does suggest that this firm doesn’t pay attention to details, and that’s a poor way for any firm to advertise its services.

From the same firm:

It is not our goal to be the biggest law firm in our region, but to be recognized as “the best” lawyers in particular areas of commercial law and litigation.

Here, there is no error in grammar. Rather, there’s an error in style.

The error in style? The shift from singular (the law firm) to plural (the best lawyers). Here’s what an editor might do to set that copy in good style:

It is not our goal to be the biggest firm in our region, but to be known as the best firm in particular areas of commercial law.

Note: When you want to make a particular point (best v. biggest), don’t use more words than you need to. Extraneous verbiage tends to obscure the point.

____________
Also from the same firm, from its copy about diversity:

Our firm was founded in a time of great inequity for minorities — due to their heritage, all four firm founders could not find employment with local law firms, regardless of their excellent educational backgrounds and clerkships.

Yipes! According to this, the reason the firm’s founders coulnd’t find work was because of their heritage, not because of prejudice against them. This is called blame the victim.

What else?

The first grammatical error in the copy seems to come from a failure to use the possessive (unless the intent was to say that the firm’s founders were firm, whatever that might mean). But the firm had five, rather than four, founders, and that “four” is a misspelling — it should have been set as “our,” as in “all our firm’s founders.”

A simple misspelling, right? Wrong. The misspelling is a significant error; it says this firm can really mess things up. Potential Clients, Beware!

Here’s how that copy might have been revised by an editor:

Our firm was founded during a time of great prejudice towards minorities. Because of that prejudice, none of our firm’s founders could find employment with any of the local firms.

Note that the revised copy is briefer than the original. Once again, extraneous verbiage has been cut.

A skilled and experienced editor offers advice to those who could use one (an editor, that is).