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.


Post a Comment

<< Home