And last but not least, a greeting to LawProfBlawg (I ignore the „Dr.“ before the name) who criticizes the dismissive attitude towards Dr. Jill Biden by using her „Dr.“ in her title. As the professor points out, this is another example of the often humiliating attitude towards the achievements of single women. Unfortunately, this is not new, but this attitude must stop, and the way to do it is to take action against such nonsense. Dr. Biden is the next first lady and will continue to teach full-time. What about the next Second Gentleman, Douglas Emhoff, who will teach at Georgetown? Will he be able to fulfill his duties as a second gentleman while teaching? Could someone ask that question? I doubt it. It is a rule of law that a legal act should be interpreted in such a way that, if possible, the whole is valid. If one thing is grammatically spelled correctly, but is incomprehensible and all this makes no sense, some words cannot be rejected to understand the rest; But if the matter is absurd by contradicting and rejecting a reasonable precedent, this repugnant question is rejected.
Many lawyers have learned that certain words and phrases, and even Latin words, are mandatory parts of advocacy. Lawyers who questioned the use of legal language were told not to question it and to do so as has always been done before. However, the trend seems to be changing, as the classic plain text movement continues to gain adherents among lawyers and judges. When we lawyers write a plea, words like this, with, with, and other seemingly necessary, but almost absurd sentences, materialize effortlessly. Whether they get used to drawing attention to our list of demands or concluding a dense section of poorly presented facts, the above, below, why, comedies and legal nonsense must all go. While showing your vocabulary can often be the most concise way to phrase something, if your big, whimsical, or non-English words and phrases make your argument inaccessible to a specific audience, that`s bad writing. Proofreading and revising legal language and other inaccessible terms in favor of plain language is an easy way to reduce the reader`s risk of confusion. Learn more about FindLaw`s newsletters, including our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
This website is protected by reCAPTCHA and Google`s privacy policy and terms of service apply. One of the many things we advise our clients not to do: „Don`t do anything that might appear in the news media.“ Are we following our own advice? Maybe, maybe not. Here`s a word of caution for all of us. The famous Los Angeles lawyer, Tom Girardi, is in a difficult situation in Chicago. He allegedly embezzled $2 million in settlement funds from his clients. Girardi is not only known himself, but also as the husband of Erika Jayne, one of the Real Housewives of Beverly Hills. The Girardis don`t live in Beverly Hills, by the way, and Ms. Girardi recently filed for divorce.
Politicians can`t block voters on Facebook, the court decides it`s better red than awake: if we have to get rid of capitalism to prevent waking capitalism, we will, says the lobby group. Have you ever wondered why the courts do not order sanctions more often? Aside from the rush to litigation since the election, there seem to be more cases where sanctions could be a good way to tell lawyers that their case is not worth devoting time and resources to justice, especially in these times of COVID-19. When I flip through advances, read various articles and remember my days in court, I wonder why the gavel does not fall more often on ridiculous and frivolous litigation, as if the courts had nothing else to do. And the penalties don`t just apply to lawyers. The Kentucky Judicial Conduct Commission held a judge responsible for his excessive conduct and sanctioned him, among other things, for a tantrum on the bench. When lawyers speak and write outside of the court`s plea, there are no „reasons.“ We simply don`t use such conjunctions in normal language unless we don`t care how other lawyers write. In most cases, when it comes to simple writing, if it weren`t in the junction junction video, you should ask yourself: is it really a necessary conjunction? The answer is probably no. This is just another example of how lawyers can and do appear stupid to the non-legal public. As the District Court said, while the verdict may be personally important to the plaintiff, no one else cares. No one else should care, except the waste of time and legal resources in hearing this case. What do you think the jury thought was sitting in this mud in the middle of a pandemic? Could awarding $1 instead of the more than $44,000 required be an implied sanction? Gunderson Gomers: Gunderson`s layoffs continue as tech issues weigh on businesses. This is incomprehensible in a written agreement or will.
Do you have a vacancy in your law firm? Post the job for free on Indeed or search for resumes from local candidates. The Chicago court, which oversees the distribution of the proceeds of the settlement, froze all assets of Girardi and his company. It`s not a pretty picture. Creditors threaten to declare bankruptcy. The blockade of Trump`s asylum ban upheld by the Girardi Supreme Court is currently in a world full of violations. Not only could he be disciplined by prosecutors (and we all know or should know how dark lawyers` discipline with respect to allegations of embezzlement is), but the Federal Court referred the case to a possible criminal investigation. (Shades of Michael Avenatti, remember him?) And the U.S. Attorney`s Office in Chicago asked the court to unseal a court case in which Girardi`s law firm admitted that the $2 million appeared to be missing. This will go far beyond sanctions.
The loss of the lawyer`s license and reputation seems to be in danger, among other things. A rather controversial term that lawyers should avoid unless citing a law, contract clause, or court notice, using the term, and discussing its meaning is: should. According to one expert, it is best to avoid using „should“ altogether. Two in one!: Trump`s top-secret documents are personal. also Executive Privileged. Why not? The lawyer had alleged violations of the constitution as well as bodily harm and other charges. The jury awarded the plaintiff`s lawyer $1 for the theft of the pen. The lawyer claimed over $44,000 in legal fees. The district court ruled that „goose sauce is goose sauce“ and awarded the lawyer $1, which ruled the case trivial. Of course, the lawyer „respectfully disagrees“ with the fee price. When did a lawyer who did not receive a fee or who received less than the amount requested ever accept the decision? Jill Switzer has been an active member of the California State Bar for over 40 years. She remembers practicing law in kinder and sweeter times.
She has had a diverse legal career, including Assistant District Attorney positions, individual practice, and several high-level internal appearances. She now teaches full-time, which gives her the opportunity to see dinosaurs, millennials and those in between interact – it`s not always civilized. You can reach them by email at oldladylawyer@gmail.com. FindLaw has an affiliate relationship with Indeed and earns a small amount of money each time someone uses Indeed`s services through FindLaw. FindLaw receives no compensation for editorial reporting. The revolution eats its children: Steven Calabresi defended the federalist society as non-partisan. And look where it led him. When writing a plea, consider your audience. Judges, jurors, clients, journalists, the public and even opponents appreciate clear and easy-to-understand handwriting. When filing a complaint, using the simplest language to get your message across is usually the most effective and persuasive way to prove your point, and can even help you score points in the court of public opinion. Do you remember the childhood phrase „Liar, liar, pants on fire“? I hope you get the reference in this opinion from the Ohio Supreme Court.
He had previously sanctioned the lawyer for misconduct due to a sexual relationship with a helpless client in a criminal case (suspended him from the practice for a period of time). The lawyer lied to the court about this, as well as other crimes. Apparently, the lawyer did not feel sufficiently reprimanded and continued on his joyful path right after his suspension, committing the same kind of behavior that had suspended him in the first place: lying to another court and his client about the suspension, falsifying his client`s name during a settlement check without authorization to do so, and other records. is not intended to improve its reputation in court.