LawProse Lessons

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 […]

      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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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:

What do lawyers need to know about dictionaries? A lot, frankly. Dictionaries aren’t created equal. So you must consider the source to ensure that what you’re consulting is thorough, accurate, and reputable. A good dictionary marshals the vocabulary of a language, or the specialized vocabulary of a particular field, and arranges the original and historically

What’s the lawyer’s single best source for typography and document design? ANSWER: All the most important points of typography are covered in LawProse’s Advanced Legal Writing & Editing course. Professor Garner has also written a good deal about the subject in Garner’s Modern American Usage, The Winning Brief, The Redbook: A Manual on Legal Style,

Is it correct to say in regards to or with regards to? ANSWER: No. Although we say with best regards and warmest regards, traditional English idiom demands in regard to and with regard to. Putting an s on these last two phrases has conventionally been considered poor usage. Oddly, it is proper and traditional to

Should the t be sounded in often? ANSWER: Preferably not — if you want to sound educated. (Likewise, refined speakers accent preferably on the first syllable, not the second.) As in words like listen, fasten, and moisten, the t in often is silent: the word is correctly pronounced /off-ən/. In his A Dictionary of Modern

Is the correct past tense pleaded or pled — or perhaps plead? That depends. If you want to be unimpeachably correct, you’ll write pleaded in all past-tense uses <has pleaded guilty>. If you’re happy to defend yourself on grounds of “common” usage based on what many others do — despite mountains of contrary authority — you’ll probably use pled <has pled guilty>. If you’re

Why did the late David Mellinkoff object to using “last will and testament”? The phrase last will and testament is a common legal doublet — a ceremonious phrase with ancient resonances. Sir Edward Coke (1552-1634) referred to an ultima voluntas in scriptis (= last will in writing). Last will and testamentis not a term of

Is there ever a good reason to use “hereby” in your writing? ANSWER: Hereby is usually needless legalese akin to other here– and there– incantations (herein, thereinafter, hereof, thereto, heretofore, thereunder, herewith). These words summon up a supposed aura of legal ceremoniousness. They make legal writing an easy target for satirists. Good legal writers avoid

Is it ever proper to use between when expressing a relation with more than two things? ANSWER: Yes. Good writers commonly use between when referring to more than two things that have reciprocal relations. It’s a common superstition that you should never use between when talking about more than two elements. Generally, between does apply