LawProse Lessons

LawProse Lesson #124

Is person that (as opposed to who) proper?       Is it permissible to say people that, or must you always say people who? One often hears language aficionados who proclaim that who is best for people, and that that, strictly speaking, is loose or even taboo as a relative pronoun referring to humans. They’re wrong: […]

LawProse Lesson #124 Read More »

LawProse Lesson #123: Forego vs. forgo.

Confusing these terms is a persistent error in legal and other writing. Forego traditionally means “to go before; to precede in time or place.” But it’s most common in the participial forms foregone and, less often, foregoing.   Ex.:  The outcome was a foregone conclusion. Ex.:   In an effective brief, the discussion flows from the

LawProse Lesson #123: Forego vs. forgo. Read More »

LawProse Lesson #122

It’s vs. its In a 1988 review of my Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage — or, as it’s now called in its third edition, Garner’s Dictionary of Legal Usage — a generally effusive reviewer criticized me for including an entry on the possessive its as opposed to the contraction it’s. The comment seemed unfair at

LawProse Lesson #122 Read More »

LawProse Lesson #121

What’s the difference between guarantee and guaranty? ANSWER: Guarantee, the broader and more common term, is both a verb and a noun. The narrower term, guaranty, today appears mostly in banking and other financial contexts; it seldom appears in nonlegal writing. Guarantee, vb. 1. To assure that a promise will be kept {the coach guaranteed

LawProse Lesson #121 Read More »

LawProse Lesson #120

What are the rules for using the labels Jr., Sr., III, etc. in a name? Three traditional rules govern these labels (although often ignored in modern usage): 1. A son drops the Jr. label soon after his father dies — as Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes did. But there are two exceptions to this rule. First,

LawProse Lesson #120 Read More »

LawProse Lesson #119: Is it better to say May 29, 2013, or May 29th, 2013?

ANSWER: It’s best without the th. An ordinal number indicates position in a series (e.g., first, second, fifteenth), and should not be used when writing a date. Any one of these forms is correct: May 29, 2013 (the American method); 29 May 2013 (the military or British method); or the 29th of May 2013 (acceptable

LawProse Lesson #119: Is it better to say May 29, 2013, or May 29th, 2013? Read More »

LawProse Lesson #118

Why isn’t *subpoenae the plural of subpoena? In response to our last lesson on subpoenas duces tecum, many people asked: Why isn’t the plural *subpoenae duces tecum? Subpoena is a singular English noun — it was never a Latin noun. Rather, the English word subpoena derived from the Latin phrase sub poena, meaning “under penalty”

LawProse Lesson #118 Read More »

LawProse Lesson #117

What’s the plural of subpoena duces tecum? ANSWER: Subpoenas duces tecum. This phrase — like any other containing a postpositive adjective — takes its plural on the noun at its beginning, the phrase’s “head.” Similar plurals include these: accounts payable accounts receivable acts malum in se agents provocateur ambassadors extraordinary annuities certain attorneys general bodies

LawProse Lesson #117 Read More »

LawProse Lesson #116

What’s the plural form of attorney general? And what is the plural possessive?       In American English, attorneys general is the correct plural form. The British prefer attorney-generals (the Brits have long hyphenated the phrase). Generally, a compound noun made up of a noun and a postpositive adjective (one that follows its noun) is pluralized

LawProse Lesson #116 Read More »

LawProse Lesson #115: Is it attorney’s fees or attorneys’ fees?

      The prevalent form appears to be attorney’s fees (whether there is one attorney, two attorneys, or an entire firm involved). But attorneys’ fees is also acceptable — and preferred by some — if it’s clear that more than one attorney is charging for services. Although inelegant, attorney fees is becoming more common — presumably

LawProse Lesson #115: Is it attorney’s fees or attorneys’ fees? Read More »

LawProse Lesson #114: Is it better to say a friend of John’s or a friend of John?

The classic example posits the obvious difference between a photograph of Lord Snowdon and a photograph of Lord Snowdon’s. We know who’s in the first picture, but we can’t be sure about the second. In this example, the meaning turns on whether the possessive or nonpossessive form appears. The writer’s choice is straightforward, depending on

LawProse Lesson #114: Is it better to say a friend of John’s or a friend of John? Read More »

LawProse Lesson #113

How do you form a possessive with a name that itself ends with a possessive –‘s, as with McDonald’s?       It’s common for a business’s name to be a proper single name in possessive form, as with McDonald’s, T.G.I. Friday’s, or Lloyd’s of London. Such names function as ordinary proper nouns despite their possessive appearance

LawProse Lesson #113 Read More »

LawProse Lesson #112

What are the rules for possessives with gerunds, or preventing fused participles? As you doubtless know, verbs have two forms we call participles. The past participle usually ends in –ed. (Exceptions occur with irregular verbs, such as swim>swam>swum — the last being the past participle.) The verb form ending in –ing is called the present

LawProse Lesson #112 Read More »

LawProse Lesson #111

Why do plural possessives cause so much trouble?       Much confusion surrounds plural possessives. Is it as simple as adding an apostrophe to the final –s? What if the plural noun doesn’t end in –s? How do you form a possessive for units of time? What about joint possessives? The list goes on. This confusion

LawProse Lesson #111 Read More »

LawProse Lesson #110

What are the most common misuses of apostrophes? The apostrophe does three things. Its first two uses are straightforward: To indicate a possessive <the plaintiff’s brief>. To mark the omission of one or more characters, especially in a contraction, as with can’t for cannot, or ’99 for 1999. The third use is a little tricky

LawProse Lesson #110 Read More »

LawProse Lesson #109

What is the proper use of were in the subjunctive mood? The subjunctive mood of the verb is a tricky one to explain. Would that it were not so [subjunctive mood], but it is [indicative mood]. In the Three Dog Night song “Joy to the World,” the lyrics use a subjunctive in “If I were [not was] the

LawProse Lesson #109 Read More »

LawProse Lesson #108

Should you avoid using sanction for fear of being misunderstood? Is its use sanctionable?       ANSWER: No, as long as your prose makes the contextual meaning clear. Sanction is a contronym: a word that bears contradictory senses. Think of oversight, which can mean either “responsible supervision” <the CFO has oversight of all budget matters> or “careless

LawProse Lesson #108 Read More »

LawProse Lesson #107

What is the most underused research technique among lawyers?       ANSWER: Undoubtedly it’s Google Books. It’s possible to perform extremely literal searches — word-for-word and character-for-character searches — on Google Books, and to have at your fingertips the entire corpus of major university libraries’ holdings. This means that you can scour all the legal treatises

LawProse Lesson #107 Read More »

LawProse Lesson #106

How did the jargonistic same — used as a pronoun — cause a crisis of presidential succession? Using same as a pronoun — as in acknowledging same or making note of same — is a primary symptom of legalese. And it’s imprecise legalese — the worst kind. When used as a pronoun, same can mean

LawProse Lesson #106 Read More »

LawProse Lesson #105

What does Bryan Garner have against “pursuant to”? ANSWER: It’s pure legalese. Lawyers are the only ones who use it — and never as a term of art. Worse still, it’s imprecise legalese. Because pursuant to can mean many things, it’s confusing and ineffective. Here are some typical examples of how lawyers use the phrase:

LawProse Lesson #105 Read More »

Scroll to Top