If you haven't heard of Arts & Letters Daily you should check it out. If you've heard of it and would like to subscribe to its RSS feed copy this link into your aggregator.
10:35:30 PM
Okay, enough optimism and happy thoughts, you lawyer bloggers. Read this. After you do, think twice about blogging. Me? I'm going to keep at it because I have no patents to file, and I'd never subject myself to a judicial confirmation hearing.
I wonder if Galileo had people advising him about the perils of speaking his mind? God, what a lame analogy. I hope no one reads this years from now and holds me to it.
Is it the end of the world? No, David Weinberger and Doc Searls proclaim that it is the World of Ends. What are they talking about? The Internet. That's what they are referring to, and their essay is compelling. Read it. Think about it. And link to it.
9:34:43 PM
Jack Valenti, honcho of the MPAA, once compared the harmful effects of the VCR to the Boston Strangler (with wonderful analogies like that he should be in the PR business). Anway, who could defend the VCR, er, Boston Strangler? Marty Schwimmer knows.
2:13:11 PM
Twenty four year old Jaered Andrews, a former contestant on American Idol, was charged with simple assault for punching a man in the face at the Blue Ribbon Grille in Farrell, Ohio, about 60 miles northwest of Pittsburgh.
Thomas Blakeley died when he fell and hit his head on the sidewalk after being punched, authorities said. So why only 'simple assault' and not murder? Well, apparently there was no intent to harm. But what about manslaughter? I don't know. Just read the story: [via CNN]
Marty Schwimmer of The Trademark Blog has openings for part-time legal assistants. Email your resume to marty@schwimmerlegal.com. A demonstrated interest in IP (other than telling him you like his Blog) is preferred.
Man, I wish I was a law student again, and that I lived near Westchester. This is the opportunity of a lifetime if you like IP law. Marty is a great guy, and would be a wonderful teacher.
Will says he's not a lawyer, but points out "I read legal documents. I can see one glaring inefficiency right there. Using English would certainly help reading, and, while it might introduce ambiguities in interpretation of contracts, it could even reduce case load. That's assuming that the language is not intended to deceive." [Cox Crow]
Will has a good point. Lawyers default to a mode of jargon. Sometimes it is necessary to laboriously list things in contracts and agreements to eliminate any possibility of confusion about what is agreed to. But, of course, that comes at a cost: namely, that the only people who are able to ascertain the rights and duties under the agreement are lawyers, and not the people who are performing under the agreement.
But, as I said, sometimes it is necessary. And sometimes it is not. In fact, often it would be better if lawyers communicated using plain English that the average person could understand. However, the tendency to speak in a plain voice is something that a lot of forces conspire together to beat out of a young lawyer. Too bad.
Just the other day, we were getting ready to file an opposition to a motion that is coming up. The first draft contained the usual introduction:
NOW INTO COURT, through undersigned counsel, come [Defendants' name] who oppose the [name of motion listed exactly like it was captioned] for the following reasons...
I struck through all of that crap and rewrote the introduction to be something like this:
Defendants oppose the motion to [short name of motion] and ask the court to deny the motion for several reasons. First, .....[plain explanation of first reason]
It goes against the grain to do this. And it sticks out as being very different. So a lot of lawyers don't like to do it. But, I ask myself the question: do I want to start with boilerplate language that is going to subtly lull my reader into the notion that this is another boilerplate opposition, or do I want to stand out and call attention to myself? Isn't the key to persuasiveness to be interesting and engaging? Well, you can be interesting and engaging while being professional, and if you are a lawyer and haven't figured out how to do that, then perhaps you should.
Thanks Will for reminding me to rant about this. Clients and judges and law clerks all deserve better writing than they typically get from lawyers. But many lawyers are too scared to try something different, even if it is likely to actually be more effective. And that isn't a problem that's confined to legal writing, either.
