I assume the NYC FBers are the exception to the rule
 

One just said to me on the phone (I'm not making this up):

-- "I believe that the definition of "[defined term]" is not robust enough in the document."

[10 minute soliloquy regarding his point omitted for everyone's sake]

followed by

-- "I believe that we have reached an accord on the opinion."

My notes on the call:

"[defined term]" not robust enough

I didn't really need to take notes on the call because he will be sending me a markup on the matter, but I jotted it down just for a good laugh.

TM, if that is you, I think I can kick your ass (with or without a severed arm).

I assume the NYC FBers are the exception to the rule
 

No deal or settlement has ever been without a certain degree of risk. You cut the risk as much as you can, but it can naver be eliminated. For the cost of a complaint and a filing fee, any good lawyer can create miles of risk where the very finest agreement you could ever imagine seemed more impervious than the Hoover Dam.

I think you and I have different definitions of "implausible" and "relevant contingencies." BTW, there is no failsafe against a malpractice action. Law's a minefield. How many hundreds of baseless malpractice suits are filed every year where the claimant was basically just throwing a complaint at the wall to try to recoup a few bucks?

I assume the NYC FBers are the exception to the rule
 

God, that word is so overused.

"substantive"
 

Concur. Also, the plural of "merit." Normal people use the singular; lawyers like to imply there's more than one even when there isn't.

Zeke
 

If after 9 EST, almost certainly at least one of these. This started with my saying picking Chauncey over McGrady wasn't a bad enough choice as to brand the GM a failure. Shit, the team that's got McGrady is a failure, isn't it?
I admit McGrady is a much better player in the sense of marquee appeal, but guess what, that kind of thinking is why there aren't too many newer banners hanging in the Garden. This is a team sport.
McGrady is averaging 25.7 ppg. Billups 19.5. But Billups' backcourt mate, Rip Hamilton is also averaging 19. If Hamilton's out, Billips could go up 6, easy. Now, I think McGrady may be shooting less this year, and probably could kick it up, but ppg isn't the point.Its not that simple. Billups is the highest ranked point in the East this season, its not just assists. As to assists, Billups team circulates the ball through lots of hands every play. Anyone on the court could have made the last pass before a shot. Its not the same as a running team. The Piston build on Defense, and that cuts down running, and high stats for the point.
McGrady touches the ball and shoots or dishes for the shot a very high %.

What does my team look like?
A team with a legit shot to make the finals (not win, make)?
A team with 2 guys who aren't McGrady, but certainly fill the position solidily (Hamilton and Prince)?
A team trying to build to win a championship, not just score lots of points, where the trade would take a solid piece of the puzzle (Billups) out for someone that really only adds a little to a spot you've got covered?
I really don't know what Joe Dumars would do. I know he passed on Rashid Wallace's Stats.
Again, McGrady is great, and you don't even mention his best quality. I think he's the most focused on D of the really high scorer, maybe since Jordan.
This is the equivalent of calling me Hitler on Politics, but I'll bite. No. Keep Jordan.
Can I play? you're GM of the Nets. You gotta get rid of one guy. Who, Kidd or Richard Jefferson?

Tons of guys can score in the NBA, especially if the team isn't good otherwise. Ultimately, Billups is a solid piece of a very good team. He was not a bad choice.

Greedy Negotiating Techniques
 

I find your ideas intriguing and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

I assume the NYC FBers are the exception to the rule
 

So? What do you want me to do about it?

I assume the NYC FBers are the exception to the rule
 

But unfortunately is not a lawyer-identifying word because of all those damn coffee and wine people. And spaghetti sauce people, I guess. Or is the advertising voice I hear in my head saying "Robusto Italian(o?)" talking about salad dressing?

"It is my understanding that . . ." -- my contribution to the lawyer talky thingamajig.

I assume the NYC FBers are the exception to the rule
 

Well, they're lawyers, so by definition . . .

Generally, I have not found NY lawyers (both lit and transactional types) to be any more or less tooly than our home grown. There have been ego/arrogance issues, but the worst I have experience in that regard is Houston-based Susman. They believe that everyone agrees they are mainly correct about everything.

I assume the NYC FBers are the exception to the rule
 

Bright people write in active voice and usually use short sentences and layman's terms as much as possible. If you get a letter containing heretofore, aforementioned, or any Latin other than res judicata, chances are you're dealing with an amatuer. Any litigator worth his salt follow the advisory guidelines (or maybe it was a memo) laid down by the Fed Bench in the early or mid 90s stating that legal writing should be as short, consice and absent legalease as possible.

of course, I follow none of the writing rules on this board...

I assume the NYC FBers are the exception to the rule
 

I am heinously guilty of that one.

Not a contribution to the lawyer talky thingamajig, but my husband says that if you are ever at a meeting of businesspeople and you find a way to throw in the phrase "all boats float on a rising tide", people look at you and nod their heads like you have just said something very sage.

(also "you have to walk before you run" is a good one, but a little overused)

I assume the NYC FBers are the exception to the rule
 

Is "It is what it is" passe in NYC?

I assume the NYC FBers are the exception to the rule
 

True, true. "It is my understanding that" is the kissing cousin of "indicated." It's the way you get to say whatever you want about what the other side said, and the burden shifts to them to show how their actual words --- which you're not, of course, responsible to remember --- could not have "indicated" that meaning or created that "understanding" on your part. If we had any balls we'd say "you said," not "you indicated"; if we had any balls we'd say "I thought," not "it was my understanding that."

Using the passive voice is just gravy --- it's a way to remove the blame for any faux misunderstanding from you and to project it on the circumstances, of which you are always a mere victim. It's also a passive-aggressive form of conflict avoidance, by making it look like you're not saying the other guy lied, when in fact that's the impression you're trying to create.

I assume the NYC FBers are the exception to the rule
 

You must prune back the branches in the graden in winter to allow for growth in the Spring.

I assume the NYC FBers are the exception to the rule
 

Maybe the rules are "Litigators are tools" and "NY lawyers are tools." Obviously, with such broad statements, there are exceptions to the rules.

This would also explain the general perception of lawyers as tools, since people mostly see litigators like The Texas Hammer (who seems like he'd be a real tool, but that's kinda good if he's on your side).