Bryan A. Garner

Every once in a while, an American will tell me that The Economist makes for wretched reading because of its many misspellings. I fear that they’re betraying both provincialism and sloth in reading. Like all other British publications, The Economist uses British English spellings. Hence BrE –our (favour) to AmE –or (favor), BrE –re (centre) to AmE […]

What is a misnomer? In law, a misnomer is the use of a wrong or inappropriate name—usually of a person or place—in a legal document. In nonlegal contexts, misnomer usually refers to a misdescription of a thing or concept.      You’ll occasionally find this term misused to mean “a popular misconception” {It’s time to banish the

The fallacy of intelligibility. Several readers wrote about last week’s lesson to say that it matters not one whit whether you “cite a case” or “cite to a case.” They said: “Everybody knows what it means.” That’s an interesting line of argument. You’ll encounter it often in usage circles, but not among those who prize

Is the verb “cite” transitive or intransitive? For most of its history, the verb cite (dating from the 15th century) has been a transitive verb; that is, it takes a direct object. For example, a lawyer cites a case or a police officer cites a driver for a traffic violation.       I could cite

Are “certworthy” and “enbancworthy” bona fide words? Yes. According to the 10th edition of Black’s Law Dictionary, certworthy dates from 1965 and means “(of a case or issue) deserving of review by writ of certiorari.” It was first recorded in the 7th edition of Black’s in 1999.       Enbancworthy is recorded from 1968 and is defined as

How much argle-bargle is required for jiggery-pokery? In the last few Supreme Court terms, Justice Antonin Scalia has used some memorable British colloquialisms—especially argle-bargle and jiggery-pokery. Argle-bargle is a chiefly British phrase that has taken on the meaning “copious but meaningless talk or writing; nonsense.” It originated in the early 19th century from the Scottish term argle—a

When do you capitalize federal and state? What about congressional and constitutional?      These words have been worked hard over the past week. Maybe they’ve earned capitals on that basis alone. But let’s see what the best typographic practice calls for—keeping in mind that professional editors today overwhelmingly prefer “down-style,” in which capitalization is sparingly used.

Embrace constructive criticism.      Undeveloped writers feel instinctively that if someone else criticizes their writing, it’s a personal affront. But more experienced writers know that if you insulate yourself from criticism, you’ll find it difficult to improve. Every document can benefit from a review by a fresh pair of eyes—as many as possible, in

How do you decide which Latin phrases to italicize and which ones to keep in roman type? The answer depends on how thoroughly naturalized the word, abbreviation, or phrase has become in English. If the term has become so commonplace in English that it is said to be “anglicized,” it stays in roman type; if

Lawyers’ biggest failing as writers. What’s the most pervasive flaw among legal writers? It’s the tendency to begin writing before fully understanding the message to be conveyed. Lawyers often don’t think through what they want to say until they’re already writing—and they therefore meander, backtrack, and even restart. Unless they spend a great deal of

Caselaw: one word or two? Two-syllable noun phrases often begin as separates, then become hyphenated, and then become solidified. Take, for example, the word today. It started as two words {to day}. In the 19th century it was commonly hyphenated {to-day}. The Century Dictionary (1895) listed to-day as the preferred form with today as a variant. In 1934 the

Does a snarky tone win in motion practice? Among the most common remarks that judges make about advocacy is how extremely distasteful they find digs, jabs, put-downs, and negative characterization of opposing counsel and opposing clients. Yet litigators everywhere seem to adopt these tactics more than ever. So what’s the best approach, and why? Should

Nouns of multitude.      Last week, we discussed the distinction between collective nouns and mass nouns and how you treat each in terms of numerical agreement. This week, we’ll address the related concept of nouns of multitude {a number of} {a bunch of} {a lot of}. These constructions typically place a collective noun after

Collective vs. Mass Nouns.      In last week’s lesson on and/or, one of the examples used this sentence: The team of lawyers, paralegals, and mediators resolved the case quickly for their clients. One reader wrote and asked why the correct wording isn’t “its clients” instead of “their clients.” It’s an arguable point—but one with a preponderance

Ban and/or. And/or dates from the mid-19th century. Although lawyers and courts have vilified and/or for most of its life, this bit of legalese continues to infest legal writing and create ambiguity. The literal sense of and/or is “both or either,” so that A and/or B means (1) “A,” (2) “B,” or (3) “both A and B.” Since and/or has a

Graduate, vb.      Last week, at a performance of The Originalist in Washington, D.C., the stage actor Ed Gero—in a superb portrayal of Justice Antonin Scalia—delivered the small gaffe of having the Justice say “she graduated Harvard College.” After receiving a friendly suggestion later that evening, Mr. Gero assured me that in future performances,

Three ways to improve a statement of facts. First, let it progress naturally from beginning to end—almost invariably in chronological order. Just tell the judge your story of the relevant events that gave rise to this legal dispute. Presenting the facts in order gives the judge a more coherent picture of the case. Second, remove

What important skill is most generally lacking among law-school graduates? Almost certainly this: the ability to develop, hone, and deliver arguments about the interpretation of contracts and statutes. Lawyers often spend months working on text-based cases without realizing that their best argument is the ordinary-meaning canon, the negative-implication canon, the last-antecedent canon, the surplusage canon,

Lay, v.t. vs. lie, v.i. These two short verbs can cause tall trouble. Let’s lay down some helpful guidelines so we won’t be accused of lying down on the job. Lay means “to put down, place, or arrange.” It’s always transitive—it needs a direct object {Please lay the purchase contract on Stan’s desk.}. Lie means “to recline, be

Lay of the land or lie of the land? Literally, the phrase means “the arrangement of an area’s terrain; topography.” Figuratively, it refers to “the facts of a given situation; the current state of affairs.” The phrase is an Americanism dating from the late 18th century. From the beginning, it’s been lay of the land—although as