Tuesday, October 28, 2003

THE TRUTH ABOUT PRACTICE Is that Legal? has a good comment about the revision, review, commenting process on associates' work at law firms:
In my experience, much of what passed for "review and revision" of lawyers' writing was just the lawyerly equivalent of territory-marking urination.
Indeed, lawyers should ask themselves when commenting on another's work whether the substance of what is written is truly changed. And this isn't just stupidity that harms no one but the client who pays for the extra editing time, imagine being a young associate trying to figure out why "if" became "in the event that" or "five days after" becomes "on the date that is five days following the date hereof." It gets even worse when an attorney representing another party to a contract comments in this fashion.

I must admit, however, that if opposing counsel is especially idiotic in his comments, then I'll fix his use of "which". I find that attorneys think they sound smarter if they use "which" instead of "that." Problem is, they always use it wrong.

Tuesday, October 14, 2003

JURY DUTY A friend got summoned to jury duty, but can't make it, so he's writing a letter to the chief judge (as required). I suggested the following text, but he didn't find it funny:
c/o the Courthouse
Raleigh, NC

Dear Mr. Judge:

I was pleased, and I must say, somewhat flattered, to receive your invitation to attend the "Jury Duty" event on November 5. I've never been asked to serve on a jury before your invitation, so, let me tell you, it was quite a surprise to be invited. A privilege even. It is my understanding that this is a "regrets only" invitation, so I am writing to you to offer my regrets. I can't make it. You see, Wednesday is a work day for me, and as I understand "Jury Duty", the juries meet on weekdays, usually during normal working hours. In fact, I think the "Peterson Jury" worked every day for weeks on end. I just can't do that. Not with my job, and all. Rest assured that I would make some time available if this were some high profile, Court TV covered trial. In that case, it might make sense for me to skip a few days of work in order to take notes and write a book on the deliberations process. Chances are, however, it's probably just some contract lawsuit, and that really doesn't generate enough media attention to make the time expenditure worthwhile for me. Can you imagine me trying to pick up women in a bar with tales of "promissory estoppel" arguments or the "statute of frauds"? Really! I'm sure you understand.

So, in short, I must decline your kind request for my attendance. Feel free to go ahead and make my reservation available to some other deserving Wake County resident.

Thanks again for the invitation. Like I said, I really am flattered.

With warm wishes,


Friday, October 10, 2003

PARENTS SUE SCHOOL OVER WIRELESS NETWORK The suit is "by parents worried that exposure to the network's radio waves could harm their children." More trial lawyers making you proud of your profession. I suspect they'll be wearing tinfoil hats in the courtroom to block out the governments mind rays.

Tuesday, October 07, 2003

F*CK THE FCC Well, not really. But the FCC says that Bono of U2's isolated use of "fuck" as in "fucking" as an exclamation during the Golden Globe awareds does not violate the FCC's indecency rules. According Reuters, the FCC said "The word 'f---ing' my be crude and offensive, but, in the context presented here, did not describe sexual or excretory organs or activities."

Time to start crafting some good loan covenants. Let's see
Section 6.19. Fuck, Shit, etc. Borrower shall not, during the term of this Agreement, violate the FCC's rules against indecency, including the use of certain curse words, including, without limitation, "fuck, " "fucking," "shit," or "shitting," or any variation thereof, in a manner other than as an insult or in an exclamatory manner, in each case, without reference to sexual or excretory actions or organs.
OK, that was fun.