LawTalkers - Fashion Board 1-08-04 through 02-03-04

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
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 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.

When a new liberal shows up on Politics, this is part of the orientation packet, isn't it?

robustpuppy

01-15-2004 05:15 PM

I assume the NYC FBers are the exception to the rule

Quote:

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
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.

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

notcasesensitive

01-15-2004 05:16 PM

I assume the NYC FBers are the exception to the rule

Quote:

Originally posted by robustpuppy
I find your ideas intriguing. I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

accord. and robust.

Atticus Grinch

01-15-2004 05:16 PM

I assume the NYC FBers are the exception to the rule

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
You must prune back the branches in the graden in winter to allow for growth in the Spring.

In my office, it's "The cut worm forgives the plow."

But I'm the only one saying it.

ltl/fb

01-15-2004 05:17 PM

I assume the NYC FBers are the exception to the rule

Quote:

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
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."

I use it to cover my ass because I'm never sure whether or not the corporate/business people have gone and changed everything and haven't bothered to tell me. As in, "It's my understanding that this is an asset deal, so we need to [benefits stuff]." That gives the other side the opportunity to say "No, we heard they decided to make it a stock deal last night" or whatever.

If an actual person seems to be saying something different from what they had said before, the I say "I had thought you wanted XYZ" or whatever. The "it is my understanding" indicates that my facts are coming from another source.

greatwhitenorthchick

01-15-2004 05:19 PM

I assume the NYC FBers are the exception to the rule

Quote:

Originally posted by ltl/fb
I use it to cover my ass because I'm never sure whether or not the corporate/business people have gone and changed everything and haven't bothered to tell me. As in, "It's my understanding that this is an asset deal, so we need to [benefits stuff]." That gives the other side the opportunity to say "No, we heard they decided to make it a stock deal last night" or whatever.

If an actual person seems to be saying something different from what they had said before, the I say "I had thought you wanted XYZ" or whatever. The "it is my understanding" indicates that my facts are coming from another source.

me too. It may be different in a transactional context than in a litigation one.

leagleaze

01-15-2004 05:20 PM

Two things

Congratulations Paigow, that is wonderful news.

Pretty Little Flower

01-15-2004 05:20 PM

I assume the NYC FBers are the exception to the rule

Quote:

Originally posted by greatwhitenorthchick
I am heinously guilty of that one.

Me too, although I think it is a phrase that has its purpose.

Here is a writing quirk that I often see (I am not sure if it is something that oly lawyers do because I rarely if ever speak or correspond with non-lawyers):

"Moreover, even if we had an obligation to purchase the widgets (which we do not) . . . ."

"Moreover, even if Party X had breached his fiduciary duty (which he did not) . . . ."

What is the purpose of this? You just told me in the immediately preceding paragraph that you have no obligation to purchase the widgets, or that Party X has not breached his fiduciary duty. Are you really concerned that, by referencing the hypothetical possibility that you do or he did, this will somehow be used as an admission against you, despite your earlier denial? "Your honor, although the representative of Y Company claims that the company has no obligation to purchase the widgets, he has FLAT OUT ADMITTED that this obligation could hypthetically exist!"

SlaveNoMore

01-15-2004 05:20 PM

I assume the NYC FBers are the exception to the rule

Quote:

ltl/fb
Is "It is what it is" passe in NYC?

Not if you use it in the same breath as "at the end of the day"

Did you just call me Coltrane?

01-15-2004 05:22 PM

I assume the NYC FBers are the exception to the rule

Quote:

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Bri If you get a letter containing heretofore, aforementioned, or any Latin other than res judicata, chances are you're dealing with an amatuer.

I've always been a big "ceteris paribus" fan. Only in casual conversation though. Not with the law.

notcasesensitive

01-15-2004 05:24 PM

I assume the NYC FBers are the exception to the rule

Quote:

Originally posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?
I've always been a big "ceteris paribus" fan. Only in casual conversation though. Not with the law.

carpe diem.

paigowprincess

01-15-2004 05:25 PM

I assume the NYC FBers are the exception to the rule

Quote:

Originally posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?
I've always been a big "ceteris paribus" fan. Only in casual conversation though. Not with the law.

I like to say "it cuts both ways" and "its a slippery slope". it combines the best of both worlds.

sebastian_dangerfield

01-15-2004 05:27 PM

I assume the NYC FBers are the exception to the rule

Quote:

Originally posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?
I've always been a big "ceteris paribus" fan. Only in casual conversation though. Not with the law.

"A fortiori" should be punishable by death. Like nails on a chalkboard.

Tyrone Slothrop

01-15-2004 05:29 PM

I assume the NYC FBers are the exception to the rule

Quote:

Originally posted by robustpuppy
God, that word is so overused.

I found myself strangely . . . aroused . . . when reading ncs's post, and now I know why. Thanks for clearing that up!

Atticus Grinch

01-15-2004 05:30 PM

I assume the NYC FBers are the exception to the rule

Quote:

Originally posted by Pretty Little Flower
"Moreover, even if we had an obligation to purchase the widgets (which we do not) . . . ."

I have had serious, heated arguments with GPs over whether this parenthetical should be removed from section headings in briefs. I always lose, because I graciously concede to their greater years of experience in losing cases based on section headings.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:06 PM.

Page 113 of 334

113

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page