LawProse Lessons

Further affiant sayeth naught. Many affidavits close with this classic legalese or some variation of it. Other than the obvious questions (“What does it mean?” and “Is it necessary?”), this phrase gives rise to two stylistic dilemmas. First, is it sayeth or saith? Among American lawyers who use the phrase (British lawyers don’t), sayeth predominates. …

LawProse Lesson #149: “Further affiant sayeth naught” Read More »

What’s wrong with putting “WITNESSETH” at the head of a contract? It harks back to an old mistake dating from mid-20th-century formbooks. Witnesseth, you see, is an archaic third-person singular form of the verb (witness), equivalent to cometh (The Ice Man cometh) or sayeth (Further affiant sayeth naught). It would make sense, in Elizabethan English, …

LawProse Lesson #148: What’s wrong with WITNESSETH? Read More »

Is snoot really a word? Yes: It is an acronym coined by the family of David Foster Wallace, who introduced the term to the literary world in his essay “Authority and American Usage” in Consider the Lobster 66-127 (2006). The word stands for either “Sprachgefühl Necessitates Our Ongoing Tendance” or “Syntax Nudniks of Our Time.” …

LawProse Lesson #147: Is “snoot” really a word? Read More »

The IP bar’s special use of comprise. In the best normal usage, comprise means “to be made up of exclusively.” But intellectual-property lawyers use it in a different sense, as a synonym of the nonexclusive word include. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit long ago anointed this peculiar usage. Here’s what …

LawProse Lesson #146: The IP bar’s special use of “comprise” Read More »

*Is comprised of Fastidious use of comprise has become increasingly rare. Garner’s Modern American Usage labels the form *is comprised of as “invariably inferior” (that’s what the asterisk signifies), yet gauges its acceptance in actual use as Stage 4 on the 5-stage “language-change index.” To you as a legal writer, that means using the phrase …

LawProse Lesson #145: *Is comprised of Read More »

Less vs. fewer Use fewer when referring to individual or countable things {fewer than ten chairs} {fewer questions asked by judges}. Use less when referring to volume, quantity, or degree {less influence on the jurors}, mass or bulk nouns {less water in the glass}, or units of measure or time {less than three ounces} {less …

LawProse Lesson #144: “Less” vs. “fewer” Read More »

When should you use a comma between two adjectives? Use a comma to separate coordinate adjectives — adjectives that qualify a noun in the same way {a long, complex trial}. To test whether the modifiers are coordinate, either (1) reverse their order, keeping the comma {a complex, long trial}, or (2) add and between them …

LawProse Lesson #143: When should you use a comma between two adjectives? Read More »

Is e-mails a correct plural, or should it be e-mail messages? People are naturally drawn to linguistic analogizing: we prefer neat correspondences. Some people therefore insist that because mail is an uncountable mass noun, e-mail must logically be a mass noun as well — and that e-mails is therefore wrong. These precisians demand e-mail messages. …

LawProse Lesson #142: Is “e-mails” a correct plural, or should it be “e-mail messages”? Read More »

Should it be e-mail or email? Two weeks ago, the New York Times officially dropped the hyphen in e-mail because of “popular demand,” according to its editor for news presentation, Patrick LaForge. The Associated Press Stylebook changed its style to the unhyphenated email in 2011, but it retained the hyphen in sister terms such as …

LawProse Lesson #141: Should it be “e-mail” or “email”? Read More »

Which is correct: a Cardinals fan or a Cardinals’ fan? Last week’s lesson about the possessive form of Red Sox ended with this sentence: “We’ll know shortly, but don’t jinx them with poor usage (unless, of course, you’re a Cardinals fan).” Should that have been written as a possessive: a Cardinals’ fan? Preferably not. Here, …

LawProse Lesson #140: Should the phrase “a Cardinals fan” be attributive or possessive? Read More »

What is the possessive form of Red Sox? The rule for plural possessives is to pluralize first, then form the possessive {woman>women>women’s} {shoe>shoes>shoes’}. But what happens when you have a playfully respelled plural for a word such as socks? That is, Sox is already considered plural: we say “the Red Sox are in the World …

LawProse Lesson #139: What is the possessive form of Red Sox? Read More »

Why is ’til considered an error for the preposition till? Why can’t it be regarded as an abbreviation of until? That simply doesn’t reflect the history of the words. Till has been considered a perfectly good preposition in general English since about 1300. It first appeared in northern varieties of Old English around 800. Until, …

LawProse Lesson #138: Why is “’til” considered an error for the preposition “till”? Read More »

Which does educated English demand: I feel bad for you or I feel badly for you? ANSWER: I feel bad for you. Writers often make mistakes when they use verbs that do nothing more than connect the subject with a descriptive word in the predicate. Remember this rule: use an adjective, not an adverb, as …

LawProse Lesson #137: “Feel bad” or “Feel badly”? Read More »

Is good becoming an adverb? Are we losing well as an adverb? A descriptive linguist might well say so. And in the sweep of time—say, two centuries hence—it may well be that these sentences will be considered Standard English: “We played good.” “You did good.”      “I’m doing really good.” “I can’t write very good.” …

LawProse Lesson #136: Is “good” becoming an adverb? Are we losing “well” as an adverb? Read More »

Farther vs. further The best way to handle these terms (both comparative degrees of far) is to use farther literally and further figuratively.      Farther refers to physical distances {Timothy ran farther up the street than Susan} {From Dallas, it’s farther to Chicago than to St. Louis}. Further, on the other hand, refers to figurative …

LawProse Lesson #135: Farther vs. further Read More »

How should you punctuate around the common Latin abbreviations e.g., i.e., etc., and et al.? With e.g. (= for example) and i.e. (= that is), the usual convention in AmE is to precede it with a comma or a dash, and invariably to follow it with a comma {He trades in farm commodities, e.g., corn …

LawProse Lesson #134: Punctuating around “e.g.,” “i.e.,” “etc.,” and “et al.” Read More »

Should you write “Plaintiff,” “the Plaintiff,” or “the plaintiff”? Preferably none of the above. Ideally, you’d populate your sentences with real names — not party designations. Your legal writing will become clearer, and readers will more easily keep track of who’s who (assuming you’re a competent expositor).      In appellate practice, this common-sense recommendation is …

LawProse Lesson #133: Should you write “Plaintiff,” “the Plaintiff,” or “the plaintiff”? Read More »

What is the right way to use articles before abbreviations? EPA or the EPA? An HMO or a HMO? There is no single “right” answer to this question. Conventional usage prevails. EPA is more common than the EPA when it’s standing alone (more on this below). But HMO is very uncommon — as rare as …

LawProse Lesson #132: Using articles before abbreviations Read More »

When should you capitalize court? Capitalize court in legal documents in only four situations: 1.  When you’re referring to the United States Supreme Court {the Court’s opinion in Marbury v. Madison}. 2.  When you’re stating a court’s full name {the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit} {the Michigan Supreme Court}. 3.  When you’re referring …

LawProse Lesson #131: When should you capitalize “court”? Read More »

Is preventative lawyering a good thing?       No. But preventive lawyering might be. *Preventative is a dubious adjective with an unnecessary syllable. Careful writers and speakers don’t use it. Sources: Garner’s Dictionary of Legal Usage 706 (3d ed. 2011). Garner’s Modern American Usage 658 (3d ed. 2009). The Redbook § 12.3, at 302 (3d ed. …

LawProse Lesson #130: Is “preventative lawyering” a good thing? Read More »