A sad, constant bid for attention

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
He only checked to insure that his name was in bold on the front page of a pleading he knew would end up featured on a popular website.

What-sure? He paid for some kind of risk-sharing vehicle? I don't understand this.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by robustpuppy
In complete sincerity, that makes it even worse. The whole point of reviewing a document is to catch errors the drafter may have missed, even if said drafter is you. To miss something so glaring on even a first read is inconceivable, provided you know what the term ought to be. And there's also no excuse for not checking the final document after your assistant has entered your changes.

No excuse?

How about this: No judge has ever thrown out a complaint or cause of action for an error of this nature. Any defendant who called the judge's attention to this would be laughed out of court, if not sanctioned for wasting the court's time. And juries very rarely adjust awards based on grammar.

In other words, perhaps the guy reviewing it gave it a quick read to be sure it stated a cause of action, if that. Put differently, he might have chosen to focus on what actually mattered. Difficult for the grammar-timmy to comprehend, I understand, but there you have it.

[robustpuppy]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
He only checked to insure that his name was in bold on the front page of a pleading he knew would end up featured on a popular website.

Ensure.

(Shake it.)

[Replaced_Texan]

I spent some time in the presence of an infant and his 20 month old brother on Saturday, and I ended up playing with the new Tickle Me Elmo more than they did. That thing cracks me up.

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
yo yo gi are Pokeman cards only the next generation.

Thanks, but that's not the part I didn't understand.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
In other words, perhaps the guy reviewing it gave it a quick read to be sure it stated a cause of action, if that. Put differently, he might have chosen to focus on what actually mattered. Difficult for the grammar-timmy to comprehend, I understand, but there you have it.

You say this on the fashion board? If we adhered to these notions in matters of dress, we'd all be wearing some kind of Maoist utilitarian smock outfit.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by robustpuppy
I guess that's why I'll always be working for the man. {Doleful sigh.}

You make a good point, as did Hank. But because Felder tries very public cases and he must know such a complaint would end up on the smoking gun and even some "legitimate" news sites, so I would think he would care more in such a case. Then again, who cares about the grammar when the story is so tacky and compelling?

Apparently, you. NTTAWWT.... it just don't pay Felder's bills.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
My OTHER eye has started twitching. Is there such a thing as sugar-free gatorade? I am choosing to believe this is the result of electrolyte imbalance.

do you have to lie more to your toadies in the new job than in the last? maybe this is a nervous reaction to all the lying?

[robustpuppy]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
No excuse?

How about this: No judge has ever thrown out a complaint or cause of action for an error of this nature. Any defendant who called the judge's attention to this would be laughed out of court, if not sanctioned for wasting the court's time. And juries very rarely adjust awards based on grammar.

In other words, perhaps the guy reviewing it gave it a quick read to be sure it stated a cause of action, if that. Put differently, he might have chosen to focus on what actually mattered. Difficult for the grammar-timmy to comprehend, I understand, but there you have it.

You really do get pissy about the funniest things. Who said anything about what a judge or jury would do? We weren't talking about how the lawyer was trying his case, we were talking about how the complaint was written, and not in the context of assessing the claim's validity or the quality of the lawyer's representation of Mr. Gest.

I like good writing. I like criticizing bad writing. Even when it doesn't "actually matter."

Don't be such a condescending tool.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
What-sure? He paid for some kind of risk-sharing vehicle? I don't understand this.

Please ensure that my name is in bold when you quote my posts. That is what really matters.

[robustpuppy]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Apparently, you. NTTAWWT.... it just don't pay Felder's bills.

Yeah, Sidd, that was exactly my point.

But you and patentpara are thinking alike today, just like yesterday.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
You say this on the fashion board? If we adhered to these notions in matters of dress, we'd all be wearing some kind of Maoist utilitarian smock outfit.

In truth, I am confronting a related problem. I very rarely wear suits -- only for going to court, or for a mediation before a retired judge. Even in the latter circumstance, I am starting not to wear a suit. I haven't worn a suit to meet with a client in roughly three years (and I was somewhat oddly overdressed in that instance).

So. Next year (I hope), I expect to have a very long trial. Giving me a good excuse to go buy some nice suits. But, I am wondering if I should avoid the high-end racks that I went to, say, last time I bought sport coats (which is what I wear most days).

It may be a jury trial, but more likely it will be before a judge. But a judge in a butthole urban area. Wearing Canali or Zegna could make me look smarmy. But goooooood.

Argh. What to do? Suits are a tool of the trade -- so shouldn't I get the tool that works best?

[patentparanyc]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
In truth, I am confronting a related problem. I very rarely wear suits -- only for going to court, or for a mediation before a retired judge. Even in the latter circumstance, I am starting not to wear a suit. I haven't worn a suit to meet with a client in roughly three years (and I was somewhat oddly overdressed in that instance).

So. Next year (I hope), I expect to have a very long trial. Giving me a good excuse to go buy some nice suits. But, I am wondering if I should avoid the high-end racks that I went to, say, last time I bought sport coats (which is what I wear most days).

It may be a jury trial, but more likely it will be before a judge. But a judge in a butthole urban area. Wearing Canali or Zegna could make me look smarmy. But goooooood.

Argh. What to do? Suits are a tool of the trade -- so shouldn't I get the tool that works best?

Come on now. Zegna. NO QUESTION.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by robustpuppy
You really do get pissy about the funniest things. Who said anything about what a judge or jury would do? We weren't talking about how the lawyer was trying his case, we were talking about how the complaint was written, and not in the context of assessing the claim's validity or the quality of the lawyer's representation of Mr. Gest.

I like good writing. I like criticizing bad writing. Even when it doesn't "actually matter."

Don't be such a condescending tool.

Thanks for pointing out my tendency to get pissy.

I will seek to emulate your calm, Zen-like attitude in all things.


eta: If you are looking for good writing, you'd be better off reading appliance warranties than reading complaints, especially those that make The Smoking Gun.

[dtb]

Originally posted by robustpuppy
Then again, who cares about the grammar when the story is so tacky and compelling?

Et tu, canis robustus?

Life no longer has meaning. Thanks a lot, man.