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

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
I always lose, because I graciously concede to their greater years of experience in losing cases based on section headings.

The attention to section headings has always puzzled me, because as a clerk I never read them (unless bolded, underlined, and followed by six exclamation points.)

Perhaps I wasn't doing my job, though, and should have advised teh judge to hold for the party with the better headings.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
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.

No kidding. If I have to hear Jenkins' story about how he lost the bathtub case to the Miller firm in '58 because he left that damned parethetical out of the header, I think I'm going to lose it. He'll never make that mistake again, or so he says.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

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

Here's my two favorite exchanges using cliches:

Dave: Bill, haven't you ever heard the expression, "When life gives you lemons, make lemonade?"

Bill: Dave, haven't you ever heard the expression, "When life gives you lemons, make lemonade, and then throw it in the face of the person who gave you the lemons until they give you the oranges you originally asked for?"

****************************************************

Dave: Bill, have you ever heard the expression "It's easier to catch flies with honey instead of vinegar"?

Bill: Dave, have you ever heard the expression "Only a hillbilly sits around and tries to figure out the best way to catch flies"?

[ThrashersFan]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
opine, no one w/o law degree has ever said this word.

Bill O'Reilly of FOX News. What do I win?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

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.

I get your point, but in most contexts "Its my understanding" is almost always unecessary and undercuts everything you say afterward. Its like opening up with "There's a good chance this is wasted breath, but here goes..." I use it in front of judges when I'mreally fucked, and it sometimes elicits a smirk from the clerk or the judge himself. Not a good thing.

Its also the hallmark opener for scared people. One guy in my office will never say shit without a qualifier. Its always, "Well, according to my review of the documents..." or "From what i've been able to gather..." I have to cross examine the s.o.b. to get a fucking answer. I have actually said "I don't want to know what you've gleaned from the file. I just want to know what exactly happened. What happened?"

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by ThrashersFan
Bill O'Reilly of FOX News. What do I win?

Not enough to make up for watching him.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by ThrashersFan
Bill O'Reilly of FOX News. What do I win?

Yeah, but he did hang out at Harvard long enough to earn a degree.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
accord. and robust.

Indeed.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by ThrashersFan
Bill O'Reilly of FOX News. What do I win?

I was very clear how you can go about getting a yearly gift from me. You tell mr the area of law. I'll get a clerk studying up, right quick! (see, I'm even willing to learn Southern talk)

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I get your point, but in most contexts "Its my understanding" is almost always unecessary and undercuts everything you say afterward. Its like opening up with "There's a good chance this is wasted breath, but here goes..." I use it in front of judges when I'mreally fucked, and it sometimes elicits a smirk from the clerk or the judge himself. Not a good thing.

Its also the hallmark opener for scared people. One guy in my office will never say shit without a qualifier. Its always, "Well, according to my review of the documents..." or "From what i've been able to gather..." I have to cross examine the s.o.b. to get a fucking answer. I have actually said "I don't want to know what you've gleaned from the file. I just want to know what exactly happened. What happened?"

I'm going to have to send you a couple of back issues.

This is a useful phrase when you are saying "It is my understanding that you have conceded x, y, and z" because it invites them to concede again in a very nice way the thing you have rephrased. If you just say "you have conceded this, that and the other thing, am I right" you're more likely to get a "No, not quite" because you didn't use the softening introduction.

But most people overuse the "softening" intros to statements; they should only be used now and then, not be habitual. I'm sure you'll agree that I am right.

Welcome to the language board, everyone.

[ThrashersFan]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Yeah, but he did hang out at Harvard long enough to earn a degree.

According to his bio, he received a Master's Degree in Public Administration from Harvard.

The first time I saw his show I would have bet good money (as opposed to the bad kind) that he was some pompous-ass NYC lawyer before getting his own show. Live and learn.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Pretty Little Flower
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!"

Assuming arguendo that either of the foregoing have any place in legal discourse, I find them to be wordy and excessive.

[ThrashersFan]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Not enough to make up for watching [Bill O'Reilly].

You don't find him entertaining? And at the same time you can watch the crawl and find out what is happening in the world before giving it over to a night filled with nothing but hockey. WWIII could start and I wouldn't know it if it happened at night during hockey season -- I would like to thank the powers that be for NHL Center Ice.....thank you.

[notcasesensitive]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Welcome to the language board, everyone.

You're welcome then.

I note that TM has been oddly silent. Perhaps it WAS him on the phone earlier today.

[SlaveNoMore]

taxwonk
Assuming arguendo that either of the foregoing have any place in legal discourse, I find them to be wordy and excessive.

As long as I get to use pari passu at least once when drafting the distribution waterfall, I am happy as a clam.