What Can an Editor Do for a Law Firm?
In addition to making sure that the articles a firm publishes are free from spelling and grammatical errors, an editor can help make sure those articles are free from factual errors.
Let’s look at a few real-world examples: several articles describing the Supreme Court’s recent ruling in LaRue v. DeWolff, Boberg & Associates, Inc.
Note: For a quick overview of this case and the court’s decision, review this Wall Street Journal article.
First, we examine this article published by Bryan Cave.
Like any article for publication, this one needs a copy edit. Consider the following excerpt [emphasis added]:
The Supreme Court ruled that ERISA affords a remedy to a participant is these circumstances.
Now, consider this excerpt:
Significantly, this opinion comes at a time when the majority of companies have abandoned traditional pension plans in favor of defined contribution plans, such as 401(k) plans.
What’s required here isn’t a copy edit, but a content edit. Why? Well, have most companies abandoned traditional pension plans? No. Most companies never had such plans.
If this seems like nitpicking, it is. But anything a law firm publishes holds the potential to inform a prospective client’s first impression of the firm. That impression is not enhanced when the firm demonstrates that it can misstate a fact and overlook the error.
____________
Now, let’s look at this article published by Haynes and Boone.
The first paragraph ends by noting that things have changed: defined contribution plans have become more prevalent than defined benefit pension plans. That’s accurate.
But consider the opening line, which claims the Supreme Court ruled that “ERISA authorizes individuals to sue plan fiduciaries for investment losses” in 401(k) plans. The court didn’t say that individuals could sue fiduciaries for investment losses. It said that participants in defined contribution pension plans can sue for “fiduciary breaches that impair the value of plan assets in a participant’s individual account.”
Sure, that’s a technicality, but clients expect firms to pay great attention to such things. After all, miss some subtle distinction in an important contract and . . . .
____________
Consider the opening to this article published by Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati:
On February 20, 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) permits a 401(k) plan participant to sue for losses incurred due to the mismanagement of the participant’s individual account when the participant was the only plan participant harmed.
A content editor might ponder this one. He might wonder whether mismanagement (a term the Supreme Court didn’t use) is quite the same as fiduciary breach (a term the Supreme Court did use), and he should ask the author about that. He’d certainly cut the last nine words in that opening sentence. They take up space, misstate the ruling, and waste a reader’s time.
____________
Finally, let’s look at this article published by Goodwin Procter. Take a look at the title of the case at the top of the article. A copy editor wouldn’t touch that, but a skilled and experienced content editor certainly would.
Articles published by a law firm do much more than apprise existing clients of important developments. They also inform prospective clients about (among other things) the firm’s ability to pay attention to detail.
Professional publishers run everything by editors before publication. Law firms would be wise to do likewise.
