LPL

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 »

Placement of only. The word only is probably misplaced more often than any other modifier in legal and nonlegal writing. Only emphasizes the word or phrase that comes immediately after it. So the more words separating only from its correct position, the more awkward and ambiguous the sentence. When it comes too early in the …

LawProse Lesson #129: Placement of “only” Read More »

Therefore vs. therefor.       Therefore is the common adverbial conjunction meaning “for that reason,” “consequently,” or “so.” It always states a conclusion when used correctly {the accident occurred at 8 a.m.; therefore rush-hour traffic was snarled for hours}. The stress is on the first syllable. Therefor (stress on the last syllable) means “for that” or …

LawProse Lesson #128: “Therefore” vs. “therefor”. Read More »

Wrongly suppressed that.       Although in many constructions it’s perfectly permissible — and even preferred — to omit that {the book I read last week}, the word is often useful and even necessary. We need it as a restrictive relative pronoun {the book that won a Pulitzer}; as a demonstrative adjective {that book is the …

LawProse Lesson #127: Underuse of “that” Read More »

That vs. which       We now come to an issue that has provoked swearing matches in recent months: how to choose between that and which as relative pronouns. Consider: Republicans oppose new taxes that are unnecessary. (Some taxes might be necessary.) Republicans oppose new taxes, which are unnecessary. (None, in their view, would ever be …

LawProse Lesson #126: “That” vs. “which” Read More »

One of those ______s who (or that): singular or plural verb?       Our last LawProse lesson ended this way: “My recommendation: don’t be one of those people who insist on not using that in reference to humans.” I told my colleagues: just wait — someone’s going to insist that it should be “one of those …

LawProse Lesson #125: “One of those who are” or “one of those who is”? Read More »

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 »

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 »

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 »

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 »

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 »

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 »

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 »

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 »

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 »

      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 »

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 »