This Post (the “Post”)
You’re a lawyer and you want to write about the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”) or the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”), so you define some abbreviations up front. That way, when you write, “The SEC is investigating so-and-so for some violation of the Act,” people know exactly what you mean (without doing more reading than necessary).
Now, consider some abbreviations set by LexisNexis for the terms and conditions of the “Official Blog of Martindale-Hubbell:”
Terms & Conditions
YOUR USE OF THIS WEB SITE CONSTITUTES YOUR AGREEMENT TO BE BOUND BY THESE TERMS AND CONDITIONS.
This Web site (the “Web Site”) is a service made available by Martindale-Hubbell, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. (”Provider”) and all content, information and software provided on and through the Web Site (”Content”) may be used solely under the following terms and conditions (”Terms of Use”).
1. Web Site License. As a user of this Web Site you are granted a nonexclusive, nontransferable, revocable, limited license to access and use the Web Site and Content in accordance with these Terms of Use. Provider may terminate this license at any time for any reason.
2. Limitations on Use. The Content on this Web Site is for personal use only and not for commercial exploitation.
The first abbreviation (”this Web site” = “the Web Site”) isn’t an abbreviation, is it?
What about the second abbreviation? Does Provider refer to Martindale-Hubbell, or to Reed Elsevier? Shouldn’t there be a comma after Reed Elsevier Inc., or after (”Provider”)?
What about the third abbreviation? Does Content refer to Web Site (as indicated by its placement) or does it refer to content, information, and software?
What about the fourth abbreviation? If the reason for using an abbreviation is to shorten a word or phrase, then why not use (”Terms”) to abbreviate terms and conditions?
Now, take a look at the first two Terms of Use. They both refer to this Web Site and the Web Site.
I’m left with the impression that these abbreviations are more reflexive than intentional. But, at least they’re put to use.
Now, consider this client alert published by Nossaman Guthner Knox & Elliot.
In the second paragraph, Provider Reimbursement Review Board is abbreviated PRRB. But why? The abbreviation is never used! So, why introduce it?
Also note the use of the abbreviation NPR (as in ” . . . it could not be “dissatisfied” with the resultant NPR . . . .”) later in the alert.
This is interesting. The abbreviation PRRB is defined, but never used. The abbreviation NPR is used, but never defined.
____________
Something else to note about the client alert published by Nossaman: it bears no date of publication. It was published less than one year ago, but it bears this remarkable notice:
This message is being sent to you in compliance with proposed Federal legislation for commercial e-mail (S.1618 - Section 301). Pursuant to Section 301, Paragraph (a)(2)(C) of S. 1618, further transmissions to you by the sender of this e-mail may be stopped at no cost to you by submitting a request to REMOVE in the subject line to info@nossaman.com or by clicking ‘unsubscribe’ above. The information contained herein does not constitute a legal opinion and should not be relied upon by the reader as legal advice or be regarded as a substitute for legal advice. The opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect opinions held by clients of the firm. Copyright Ó 2007 Nossaman Guthner Knox & Elliott LLP. All rights reserved. “Nossaman Healthcare Law” is a service mark of Nossaman Guthner Knox & Elliott LLP.
What’s remarkable about this notice? A number of things:
1. The proposed federal legislation was superseded by the CAN-SPAM act over four years ago.
2. The alert is posted as a Web page, so the proposed federal legislation doesn’t even apply.
3. The notice says that further transmissions of “this e-mail” (rather than subsequent e-mails about other developments in the law) may be stopped (rather than can be stopped, or certainly will be stopped) by clicking some nonexsitent “unsubscribe” above.
7 February 2008 at 15:42
Mister,
You are discovering the annoying legal-writing convention to “define” everything and create shorthand terms for everything. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve seen a shorthand term created and then never used. Silly.
7 February 2008 at 15:46
Silly? Perhaps.
Costly? Maybe. Seems to me that a potential client might look at this and think,”hmmm . . . looks like this attorney is paying close attention to his work.”
14 February 2008 at 5:02
This type of defining is indeed a compulsion among many. In a law suit between Smith and Jones, it is not uncommon to sea brief begin: In this appeal, tom Jones (”Jones”) contends the trial court erred by granting summary judgment in favor of Jim Smith (”Smith”). “Smith” refers to Smith” and “Jones” refers to Jones”? You don’t say!
14 February 2008 at 5:06
I dunno. If I saw that in a brief, I sure as heck wouldn’t pay the author of it $400/hr to do any work on my behalf. I’d be worried about what other things he neglected to attend to that I’d wind up paying for.