One Space Vs. Two Spaces At The End Of A Period.

13 Wednesday May 2015

Posted by in Legal Writing, Punctuation

≈ Comments Off on One Space Vs. Two Spaces At The End Of A Period.

Tags

, , ,

Two Spaces After a Period, by Mignon Fogarty, Grammar Girl Blog

http://www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/grammar/two-spaces-after-a-period

I learned to type on a typewriter. The rule was back then was to add 2 spaces after a period at the end of a sentence. When I first heard about the switch to 1 space rather than 2, I wondered why change?

The reason was clear. I was no longer using a typewriter, but a machine that automatically adjusts the spacing between characters and sentences. Makes sense to me. -CCE

Were you taught to put two spaces after a period at the end of a sentence? Many people were, but now most publications recommend using just one. Here’s the scoop.

If you learned to type on a typewriter, you’re going to hate what I say next: Do not put two spaces after a period. Don’t do it. Just use one.

I know. I was taught to use two spaces after a period in my high school typing class too, but you know what? It’s not that hard to break the habit. I haven’t been tempted to type two spaces for decades. It’s not like quitting smoking. I don’t find myself in nostalgic typewriting situations and suddenly get hit by an unexpected urge to type two spaces.

The modern and easy-to-follow style is to put one space after a period.

I’m not making this up to torment you. Typesetters write and beg me to tell people to only use one space. If you use two spaces, they have to delete them. Yes, it’s not that hard to do it with search-and-replace, but it’s not that hard to put dishes in the dishwasher either, and you don’t like doing that, do you?

If sympathy for typesetters doesn’t move you, I’m willing to bet you’re a rule follower. I don’t have a lot of to-heck-with-the-rules type of readers or listeners. And everyone who makes the rules today agrees: It’s a one-space world.

TheChicago Manual of Style, the US Government Printing Office Style Manual, ThePublication Manual of the American Psychological Association, and the AP Stylebook are just a few of the style guides that recommend one space after a period. . . .

Continue reading →

How Much Is Your Arm Worth?

13 Wednesday May 2015

Posted by in Disabilities, Employment Law, Workers' Compensation

≈ Comments Off on How Much Is Your Arm Worth?

Tags

,

How Much Is Your Arm Worth? Depends On Where You Work, by Michael Grabell, ProPublica, and Howard Berkes, NPR, ProPublica Blog

http://www.propublica.org/article/how-much-is-your-arm-worth-depends-where-you-work

Each state determines its own workers’ compensation benefits, which means workers in neighboring states can end up with dramatically different compensation for identical injuries.

At the time of their accidents, Jeremy Lewis was 27, Josh Potter 25.

The men lived within 75 miles of each other. Both were married with two children about the same age. Both even had tattoos of their children’s names.

Their injuries, suffered on the job at Southern industrial plants, were remarkably similar, too. Each man lost a portion of his left arm in a machinery accident.

After that, though, their paths couldn’t have diverged more sharply: Lewis received just $45,000 in workers’ compensation for the loss of his arm. Potter was awarded benefits that could surpass $740,000 over his lifetime.

The reason: Lewis lived and worked in Alabama, which has the nation’s lowest workers’ comp benefits for amputations. Potter had the comparative good fortune of losing his arm across the border in Georgia, which is far more generous when it comes to such catastrophic injuries.

This disparity grimly illustrates the geographic lottery that governs compensation for workplace injuries in America. Congress allows each state to determine its own benefits, with no federal minimums, so workers who live across state lines from each other can experience entirely different outcomes for identical injuries.

Nearly every state has what’s known as a ‘schedule of benefits’ that divides up the body like an Angus beef chart. . . .

Continue reading →

Free Legal Research With Google Scholar – Part II.

12 Tuesday May 2015

Posted by in Google Scholar, Internet, Research

≈ Comments Off on Free Legal Research With Google Scholar – Part II.

Tags

, , ,

How To Conduct Free Legal Research Using Google Scholar In 2015 (Part 2), by Nicole L. Black, LLRX.com

http://www.bespacific.com/new-on-llrx-how-to-conduct-free-legal-research-using-google-scholar-in-2015-part-2/

Legal research is something lawyers do nearly every day. That’s why convenient, affordable access to legal research materials is so important. The advent of computer-based legal research was the first step toward leveling the playing field and providing solos and small firms with access to the incredible depth of materials once only available in academic or government law libraries or in the law libraries of large law firms. But it was web-based legal research that truly gave solos and small firms the tools they needed to compete-and at a price they could afford. Google Scholar is a prime example of this-it provides free access to a wide range of legal materials, all of which are accessible and searchable via a user-friendly interface. The trick is to set aside time to learn the ins and outs of conducting legal research on Google Scholar. . . .

Continue reading →

When A Divorcing Spouse Hides Assets, How Do You Find The Red Flags?

12 Tuesday May 2015

Posted by in Family Law, Hidden Assets, Marital Asset

≈ Comments Off on When A Divorcing Spouse Hides Assets, How Do You Find The Red Flags?

Tags

, , ,

Divorce & Hidden Money: Searching For Assets By Recognizing Red Flags, by Fred Abrams, Asset Search Blog

http://www.assetsearchblog.com/2015/04/20/divorce-hidden-money-searching-for-assets-by-recognizing-red-flags/

If a divorcing spouse hides marital assets there usually are red flags. Red flags are also often found when assets have been hidden by tax fraudsters, Ponzi schemers, bankruptcy debtors, money launderers & narco-traffickers. This 16th post in the ‘Divorce & Hidden Money ‘ series examines the red flags.

Red flags indicating assets might have been hidden are listed at my post ‘Locating Hidden Assets By Spotting The Red Flags.’ The list describes 18 red flags including the use of: multiple jurisdictions, sham trusts, bulk-cash smuggling, etc. In addition to the 18 on the list, below are 6 more red flags of asset concealment. The 6 red flags or money laundering indicators were published by the Egmont Group, an international organization which fights money laundering and terrorist financing.¹   Even though some of them discuss criminals or laundering, the 6 red flags might be used to help locate assets hidden by a divorcing spouse ….

Continue reading →

Who Knew Adverbs Were So Dangerous?

10 Sunday May 2015

Posted by in Appellate Writing, Legal Writing

≈ Comments Off on Who Knew Adverbs Were So Dangerous?

Tags

, , , ,

Using Adverbs Recklessly Can Hurt Your Appeal And Vex The Courts, by Debra Cassens Weiss, American Bar Journal – Appellate Practice (with hat tip to William P. Statsky)

http://tinyurl.com/mvggq6p

Adverbs can be a boon and a bane to lawyers who argue over the meaning of words such as ‘knowingly,’ ‘intentionally’ and ‘recklessly’ and sprinkle them throughout their briefs.

Indeed, the number of disputes over how to interpret adverbs in criminal statutes has surged since the 1980s, the Wall Street Journal (sub. req.) reports, citing research by Brooklyn Law School professor Lawrence Solan. But losing an argument over statutory construction isn’t the only downside to adverbs. . . .

Continue reading →

Objection! Argumentative!

09 Saturday May 2015

Posted by in Cross-Examination, Direct Examination, Evidence, Making Objections, Objections, Trial Tips and Techniques

≈ Comments Off on Objection! Argumentative!

Tags

, , , ,

“Objection! Argumentative” Is That Really A Valid Objection During Cross Examination?, by Paul N. Luvera, Plaintiff Trial Lawyer Tips Blog

http://plaintifftriallawyertips.com/objection-argumentative-is-that-really-a-valid-objection-during-cross-examintion

An outstanding Seattle plaintiff’s trial lawyer & I have been discussing the common objection made during cross-examination that the question is ‘argumentative’ because  of a trial we  have a common interest in where the  judge  sustains cross-examination questions that directly challenge the witnesses testimony as untruthful where the objection of ‘argumentative’ is made. My position is that cross-examination is confrontational and a testing ground for witness credibility by challenging the witness. I believe that judges who sustain an objection to the confrontation as ‘argumentative’ do not fully understand the function of cross-examination and the rules of evidence. I decided to share my viewpoint for your consideration. . . .

Continue reading →

West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals Rules On Fee-Splitting Between Lawyers and Non-Lawyers.

09 Saturday May 2015

Posted by in Contract Law, Legal Ethics, Paralegals/Legal Assistants, Rules of Professional Responsibility, Unauthorized Practice of Law

≈ Comments Off on West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals Rules On Fee-Splitting Between Lawyers and Non-Lawyers.

Tags

, , , , ,

West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals Refuses to Enforce Unethical Fee-Splitting Agreement, by Jeremy Telman, Contracts Prof Blog

http://tinyurl.com/pxrloyc

Gary Rich and Joseph Simioni met in connection with an asbestos case involving West Virginia University. Rich is an attorney. Simioni has a J.D. but was never admitted to the bar. Starting in the 1990s, the two men collaborated on two additional asbestos cases and contracted with out-of-state law firms to help them class action litigation. It appears that until 2002, the men agreed that they would split the proceeds of their work 50/50. but then Rich announced there would be an 80/20 split in his favor. The parties then proceeded on this basis and committed their agreement to writing in 2005.

Rich now contends that he was under the impression that Simioni was a licensed attorney, and he did not realize that Simioni was not licensed until 2000 or 2001. He consulted with the former Chief Lawyer Disciplinary Counsel of the West Virginia State Bar, who told him that Sinioni ‘might not be able to get paid ethically.’

Simioni eventually filed sued in District Court against the out-of-state law firms, seeking recovery based in quantum meruit, unjust enrichment and breach of an implied contract. The District Court certified the following question to the Supreme Court of Appeals:

Are the West Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct statements of public policy with the force of law equal to that given to statutes enacted by the West Virginia State Legislature?

The Supreme Court of Appeals answered in the affirmative, at least with respect to Rule 5.4 of the Rules of Professional Conduct. which prohibits fee-sharing between lawyers and non-lawyers. The Court held for the first time (but based on numerous authorities) that fee-sharing agreements between lawyers and non-lawyers violate public policy. . . .

Continue reading →

Excellent Editing Tips From Jonathan Van Patton.

09 Saturday May 2015

Posted by in Bad Legal Writing, Editing, Legal Argument, Legal Writing, Readability

≈ Comments Off on Excellent Editing Tips From Jonathan Van Patton.

Tags

, , , , , , ,

“On Editing,” by Louis J. Sirico, Jr., Legal Skills Prof Blog (with hat tip to William P. Statsky)

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/legal_skills/2015/05/on-editing.html

 

Excellent article on editing! Editing is no easy task. You have to practice to do it well.

This article focuses on editing, but also on persuasive writing. Anyone interested in writing a winning brief, motion, or opening and closing argument will like this one. -CCE

An excellent treatise on editing and writing is Jonathan Van Patten’s article “On Editing,” 60 South Dakota Law Review 1 (2015). Employing an extremely clear writing style, he states and explains his propositions on good writing. I plan to distribute the article to the editors of my school’s law reviews.

You can access the article here.

An Employee Manual Predicament.

07 Thursday May 2015

Posted by in Employee Manuals, Employment Law, FMLA Leave, Health Care Benefits

≈ Comments Off on An Employee Manual Predicament.

Tags

, , , ,

Flag on the Play: Court Takes Away Employer’s Victory Because of Mistake in the Employee Manual, by Jason Shinn, Michigan Employment Law Advisor [originally published February 5, 2015]

http://tinyurl.com/pkld6yo

This past week saw the Seattle Seahawks skillfully avoid winning back-to-back Super Bowls because of (arguably) bad decision-making (all the Seahawks had to do was move the ball 36 inches into the end-zone – the only other decision worse than passing in that situation was having Katy Perry perform at half-time, but I digress).

An employer found itself in a similar situation and after further review its victory in an employment-related discrimination claim was reversed because of poor decision-making in relation to its employee manual.

Specifically, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals (the federal circuit that covers Michigan employers) reversed a trial decision in favor of an employer in Tilley v. Kalamazoo Cnty. Rd.Comm’n (1/26/2015). The employer was sued for claims under the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) (29 USC § 2601 et seq.) and under Michigan’s Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act.

The FMLA and Eligibility

For background purposes, the FMLA provides employees ‘a total of 12 workweeks of leave during any 12-month period for . . . a serious health condition that makes the employee unable to perform the functions of the position of such employee.’ 29 U.S.C. § 2612(a)(1)(D). Importantly, these FMLA benefits are not available to all employees. Only an ‘eligible employee’ who works for an ‘employer’ – as both terms are defined under Act – may obtain such benefits.

The Court of Appeals agreed with the district court that the plaintiff employee was not FMLA eligible pursuant to what is called the FMLA’s 50/75 Employee Threshold (to be FMLA eligible, an employer must employ at least 50 employees at, or within 75 miles of, the employee’s worksite at the time the FMLA leave was requested). Again, it was undisputed that the Road Commission did not employ at least 50 employees at, or within 75 miles of, his worksite at the time the plaintiff sought FMLA leave.

At this point, the employer should have been well into its touchdown dance. But there was a flag on the play – an incorrectly drafted employee manual. . . .

Continue reading →

Free Legal Research With Google Scholar – Part I.

04 Monday May 2015

Posted by in Research

≈ Comments Off on Free Legal Research With Google Scholar – Part I.

Tags

, , ,

How To Conduct Free Legal Research Using Google Scholar In 2015 (Part 1), by Nicole L. Black, LLRX.com

http://www.llrx.com/features/googlescholar2015p1.htm

It used to be that access to legal research databases cost an arm and a leg, but this was back in the good ol’ days when Lexis  and Westlaw had cornered the legal research market. How times have changed! Today you have more options than ever before, ranging from the old stand bys, Westlaw and Lexis, more affordable legal research options such as Fastcase and CaseMaker, and entirely free alternatives such as Google Scholar.

For many lawyers, Google Scholar is an incredibly appealing option since it’s free. I last wrote about Google Scholar back in 2012 and some of the features have changed, while others have been added. So that’s why I’m writing this updated two-part blog post series on Google Scholar. I’ll explain the ins and outs of using Google Scholar to conduct legal research, focusing on the basics in this post and then in next week’s post, I’ll highlight some of the more advanced features.

For starters, here’s what’s included in the Google Scholar database, as described on the ‘Search Tips’ page at Google Scholar. . . .

Continue reading →

Why It’s A Bad Idea To Use Both Words and Digits When Writing Numbers.

02 Saturday May 2015

Posted by in Contract Law, Legal Writing, Numbers

≈ Comments Off on Why It’s A Bad Idea To Use Both Words and Digits When Writing Numbers.

Tags

, , , , ,

Revisiting Use of Words and Digits to Express Numbers, by Ken Adams, Adams on Contract Drafting

http://www.adamsdrafting.com/revisiting-use-of-words-and-digits-to-express-numbers/

Some legal writers advocate writing out a number and then adding digits in parentheses. In this post, Ken Adams argues against this practice. If anything, it makes what your writing more verbose and harder to read regardless of the type of document.

Most people do not argue with Strunk and White. Its 3rd edition says to spell out numbers under 100, and use digits for numbers 100 and above. The 4th edition, which came out in 2000, specifically admonishes against spelling out numbers, unless they are used in dialogue. -CCE

More often than not, contract drafters use words and digits to express numbers, as in no later than thirty (30) days after the Closing. That’s a bad idea, for two reasons:

First, it creates clutter that distracts the reader. And the more numbers a contract contains, the greater the distraction.

And second, it violates a cardinal rule of drafting—Thou shalt not state the same thing twice in a contract! Whenever you say the same thing twice, you introduce a potential source of inconsistency. . . .

Continue reading →

Top Ten Checklist For Reviewing Discovery.

02 Saturday May 2015

Posted by in Discovery, Exhibits, Federal Rules of Discovery, Interrogatories, Requests for Admissions, Requests for Production, Trial Tips and Techniques

≈ Comments Off on Top Ten Checklist For Reviewing Discovery.

Tags

, , , , ,

Top Ten Things To Do With Discovery Responses, by Carol Treasure, RN, PhD, JD, Cooper & Scully, P.C., The Bar Association of San Francisco

http://www.sfbar.org/basf-bulletin/2012/dec-2012/discovery-responses.aspx

Attorneys expend tremendous effort drafting interrogatories and requests for admissions or documents. Having a checklist will assist you when reviewing the discovery responses. Below is a list of ten things you can do with discovery responses which can save you time and help with case management. . . .

Continue reading →

No Perfection Standard In E-Discovery?

02 Saturday May 2015

Posted by in Discovery, E-Discovery, Federal Rules of Discovery, Requests for Production

≈ Comments Off on No Perfection Standard In E-Discovery?

Tags

, , , , ,

Is There a Right to Fail in E-Discovery?, by Craig Ball, Ball In Your Court Blog

https://ballinyourcourt.wordpress.com/2015/05/01/is-there-a-right-to-fail-in-e-discovery/

Disagreements about scope and process in e-discovery shouldn’t split between plaintiffs’ and defendants’ interests. After all, everyone is a requesting and producing party, whether north or south of the ‘v.’ Yet, the reality is that most defense counsel see themselves as producing parties, and most plaintiffs’ counsel identify with requesting parties. That unfortunate alignment poisons our ability to set aside allegiances and be officers of the Court mutually determined to find the most effective and efficient means to discover evidence illuminating the issues.

Cooperation in e-discovery is derided as naive in an adversarial system of justice, and ‘discovery about discovery’ is vilified as a diversionary tactic, a modern take on the maxim, ‘if you can’t try the case, then try your opponent.’ Counsel for responding parties are quick to note that no party is obliged to deliver a perfect production. They’re absolutely right. Perfection is not the standard. But, is a producing party entitled to fail before a requesting party may inquire into the scope and process of e-discovery? Must we wait until the autopsy to question the care plan? . . . .

Continue reading →

Casetext and Law Genius – Alternatives to Westlaw and Lexis?

27 Monday Apr 2015

Posted by in Casetext, Law Genius, LexisNexis, Research, Westlaw

≈ Comments Off on Casetext and Law Genius – Alternatives to Westlaw and Lexis?

Tags

, , , , , , ,

Casetext and Law Genius: Wikipedia for Law? by Sam Harden, Lawyerist Blog

https://lawyerist.com/81229/casetext-law-genius-wikipedia-law/?utm_source=lawyerist-sidebar

Once hidden behind the paywalls of Westlaw and Lexis Nexis, the law is quickly becoming open source. Court decisions have always been part of the public record, at least in theory, but accessing those decisions has always been difficult for both lawyers and non-lawyers alike. The internet has been slow in getting around to making court decisions publicly searchable and understandable.

Recently, two online communities have attempted to make the law more user-friendly by letting lawyers and members of the public add comments, explanations, and cross-references. Both communities are worth exploring if you are a solo or small practitioner. . . .

Continue reading →

Pregnant Manager Fired For Refusing To Pay Back Money Taken In Robbery.

27 Monday Apr 2015

Posted by in At-Will Employment, Employment Law

≈ Comments Off on Pregnant Manager Fired For Refusing To Pay Back Money Taken In Robbery.

Tags

, , , , ,

Popeye’s Manager Fired after Refusing to Pay for Robbery,  by Thomas J. Crane, San Antonio Employment Law Blog

http://tinyurl.com/nn48we6

This is the ugly side of at-will employment. Under at-will employment, a worker can be fired for any reason, so long as the reason does not involve discrimination and a few other rare exceptions. Marissa Holcomb was fired from her job as manager at the Popeye’s in Channel View, a Houston suburb after the place was robbed. The robber took $400 from the cash register. Ms. Holcomb was told to pay back the $400 or be fired. The pregnant mother of three chose to be fired. She could not afford to pay $400, especially after risking her life for her employer. The robber pointed a pistol at her and others during the incident.

Ms. Holcomb was fired less than 36 hours after the robbery. A franchise spokeman said she was fired because she left too much money in the register. . . .

Continue reading →

A “Rant of Sorts?” More Like A Meltdown.

26 Sunday Apr 2015

Posted by in Bad Legal Writing, Court Rules, Courts, E-Filing, Legal Writing

≈ Comments Off on A “Rant of Sorts?” More Like A Meltdown.

Tags

, , ,

It “May Appear to Some to Be a ‘Rant’ of Sorts,” by Kevin Underhill, Lowering the Bar Blog

http://www.loweringthebar.net/2015/04/it-may-appear-to-be-a-rant.html

Okay, there’s no question that the person who wrote this document had some issues to get off her chest. We all need to express ourselves. Some of us just do it differently than others. Regardless of what has happened in this case, this reaction over the top.

This is probably a good time to mention that this is not the way to persuade the court to do what you want. -CCE

In this Facebook post, Tamah Jada Clark, the author of the now-legendary pleading entitled ‘To F— This Court And Everything That It Stands For,’ expresses puzzlement as to why that pleading ‘has now, apparently, become a ‘big deal.’ She also suggests that ’there is a lot of ambiguity and confusion as to what exactly has taken place heretofore to provoke what may appear to some to be a ‘rant’ of sorts.’

That may appear to some to be an understatement of sorts.

Clark suggests in the post that she ‘will take time to address the matter’ in the near future, and I’m certainly looking forward to that, but she does offer a couple of justifications. First, she argues that the incident is being exaggerated, saying that the ‘Notice [To F— This Court And Everything That It Stands For] is one of MANY documents I filed with the court and it only represents less than 1% of what has taken place.’ I know what you mean. You do everything right and then just ONCE you snap and file a nine-page profanity-filled diatribe telling a federal judge that he ‘sucks nuts’ and should ‘die,’ and then they never let you live it down.

Second, she claims that the judge has treated her unfairly all along and, oddly, that the judge has not allowed her to express herself. . . .

Continue reading →

Georgetown Law Creates Pro Bono Firm for D.C. Residents.

25 Saturday Apr 2015

Posted by in In Custodia Legis

≈ Comments Off on Georgetown Law Creates Pro Bono Firm for D.C. Residents.

Tags

, , ,

Georgetown Law Designs Firm To Help Low-Income Individuals, Barco 2.0: Law Library Reference

http://tinyurl.com/nqwfalf

Georgetown Law has announced that it has teamed up with law firms DLA Piper and Arent Fox to create a new nonprofit law firm designed to help low-income individuals with their civil law needs. Named the D.C. Affordable Law Firm (DCALF), it will be a nonprofit low bono law firm that will provide affordable, high quality legal services to D.C. residents who do not qualify for free legal aid and to small businesses and nonprofits in the District. The anticipated opening date is October 2015. . . .

Continue reading →

The Rule of Witness Sequestration.

25 Saturday Apr 2015

Posted by in Evidence, Trial Tips and Techniques, Witnesses

≈ Comments Off on The Rule of Witness Sequestration.

Tags

, , ,

No Contact: Superior Court of Pennsylvania Reacts to Violation of Sequestration Order by…Lifting the Order, by Colin Miller, EvidenceProf Blog

http://tinyurl.com/puhw9k9

If you’ve ever been to trial and in charge of wrangling witnesses, you know about the rule of sequestration. Usually one or both parties invoke the rule at the beginning of trial, and anyone who may testify as a witness must leave the courtroom. The point is to prevent any witness’ testimony to be influenced by that of another’s.

This post discusses the Rule and the Court’s ruling when the Rule is not followed.  Like Mr. Miller, I don’t understand the Court’s ruling on this one. -CCE

Similar to its federal counterpart, Pennsylvania Rule of Evidence 615 reads as follows:

At a party’s request the court may order witnesses sequestered so that they cannot learn of other witnesses’ testimony. Or the court may do so on its own. But this rule does not authorize sequestering:

(a)  a party who is a natural person;

(b)  an officer or employee of a party that is not a natural person (including the Commonwealth) after being designated as the party’s representative by its attorney;

(c)  a person whose presence a party shows to be essential to presenting the party’s claim or defense; or

(d)  a person authorized by statute or rule to be present.

So, assume that a judge orders a witness sequestered and tells him not to discuss the case with prior witnesses. Further, assume that the witness violates this sequestration order by talking to a prior witness. You’d expect there to be severe consequences for that witness, right? . . .

Continue reading →

2015 Federal Sentencing Guidelines And More From The Sentencing Commission.

24 Friday Apr 2015

Posted by in Criminal Law, Sentencing Guidelines

≈ Comments Off on 2015 Federal Sentencing Guidelines And More From The Sentencing Commission.

Tags

, ,

United States Sentencing Commission

http://www.ussc.gov/

There simply is too much at this website to describe it all. The list below is only a portion of the data. Most importantly, it includes the 2015 USSC Guidelines Manual, updated November 1, 2014, as well as a wealth of research, statistics, training, tables, demographics, sentencing information, and more. Here is a quick summary.

Continue reading →

A Novel Approach To Circuit Court’s Word Limit Rule. If Only It Had Worked!

22 Wednesday Apr 2015

Posted by in Abbreviations, Appellate Writing, Bad Legal Writing, Brief Writing, Editing, Initialisms, Legal Writing, Readability

≈ Comments Off on A Novel Approach To Circuit Court’s Word Limit Rule. If Only It Had Worked!

Tags

, , , , ,

Squished-Together Words Don’t Count As One, Federal Circuit Says; Appeal Is Tossed, by Debra Cassen Weiss, ABA Journal (with hat tip to William P. Statsky!)

http://tinyurl.com/kqmddjt

A litigant that squeezed multiple words together and resorted to abbreviations didn’t satisfy word limits in its briefs and won’t be able to pursue its appeal, according to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

The appeals court tossed the patent appeal by Pi-Net International in an April 20 order (PDF). How Appealing links to the opinion and a story by Law360 (sub. req.), which dubbed the creative wording ‘a trick straight out of high school English class.’ . . .

*           *           *

On appeal, JPMorgan objected to Pi-Net’s first brief, saying it attempted to evade the 14,000 word limit by deleting spaces between various words and squeezing them together, according to the Federal Circuit. The Federal Circuit offered an example: One case citation consists of 14 words, but Pi-Net squeezed them together to make them into one word. . . .

Continue reading →

2015’s 60 Apps in 60 Minutes from The ABA TECHSHOW.

22 Wednesday Apr 2015

Posted by in Apple, Apps, iPhones, Mac

≈ Comments Off on 2015’s 60 Apps in 60 Minutes from The ABA TECHSHOW.

Tags

, , , , , , ,

60 Apps in 60 Minutes 2015, by Jeff Richardson, iPhone J.D. Blog

http://www.iphonejd.com/iphone_jd/2015/04/60-apps-2015.html

This past Saturday morning [April 18, 2015] at ABA TECHSHOW in Chicago, I teamed up with Dallas attorney Tom Mighell, Ohio attorney Joe Bahgat and Florida legal tech consultant Adriana Linares to present the 2015 installment of 60 iOS Apps in 60 Minutes.  Lots of useful and fun apps were discussed during the session, and the enthusiasm from the standing-room-only crowd was fantastic. I know that the session was fast-paced, so for those of you who attended and who may have missed an app or two, and for those of you who could not make it to ABA TECHSHOW 2015 this year, here is a list of the apps that we discussed. . . .

Continue reading →

Intellectual Property Links and Resources.

19 Sunday Apr 2015

Posted by in Copyright, Intellectual Property, Patent Law, Trademarks

≈ Comments Off on Intellectual Property Links and Resources.

Tags

, , , ,

Patent Litigation – Been Sued or Gotten a Demand Letter? by uspto – United States Patent and Trademark Office Blog

Regardless of whether you are a novice or expert in intellectual property law, you should find this website helpful. It has many FAQs, resources, and other tools to help the inventor and those you work in this area of the law.

Click on http://www.uspto.gov/learning-resources for more links to resources for the legal profession, educators, inventors, and others, including instructions for filing online. Nice laid out, comprehensive, and easy set up alerts for fee and rule changes. Definitely worth a look. -CCE

Answers To Common Questions About Abusive Patent Litigation

Received a letter about or been sued over a patent? You’re in the right place. See below for answers to common questions: (Trademark-related resources) are also available.) . . .

Continue reading →

Pleading Code In Poetry.

18 Saturday Apr 2015

Posted by in Civil Procedure, Federal Civil Procedure, Legal Writing, Legalese, Plain Language, Pleadings

≈ Comments Off on Pleading Code In Poetry.

Tags

, , , , , , ,

The Pleading, by Mark Cooney, Plain Language, 94 Mich. B.J. 3, 42 (March 2015)

Click to access pdf4article2583.pdf

Another article from the Plain English Subcommittee of the Michigan Bar Journal. As always, each article makes a case for using plain English in legal writing. This group has been, and remains, a strong proponent for elegant legal writing without legalese.

This selection is a clever take off Edgar Allen Poe’s poem, The Raven, that cautions the reader against writing pleadings with stuffy, archaic language. Its author, editor in chief of The Scribes Journal of Legal Writing and author of Sketches on Legal Style, Mark Cooney, is a legal writing professor at Western Michigan University Cooley Law School. -CCE

Once upon a docket dreary, as I pondered
after hearings,
Over many a curious case then pending
with the busy court,
While I read, attention sapping, suddenly
there came a tapping,
As of someone gently rapping, rapping at
my chambers door.
‘Tis my clerk again,’ I grumbled, ‘tapping
on my chambers door—
Oh, yet another matter more.’

Pausing just a moment further, bracing
for the fresh-faced fervor,
Up I turned my heavy head to bid my
clerk in through the door.
In he stepped with youthful stride,
brand-new filing at his side,
Still another motion coming briskly
through my chambers door—
A docket full and motions more, another
through my chambers door—
Coming through my chambers door. . . .

Continue reading →

“Read Receipt” Email Message Is Not Hearsay.

17 Friday Apr 2015

Posted by in Admissibility, Authentication, Evidence, Federal Rules of Evidence, Hearsay, Litigation, Summary judgment

≈ Comments Off on “Read Receipt” Email Message Is Not Hearsay.

Tags

, , , , , , ,

Court Rules that Automatically Generated Read Receipt is Not Hearsay: eDiscovery Case Law, by Doug Austin, eDiscoverydaily

http://tinyurl.com/ozbratn

In Fox v. Leland Volunteer Fire/Rescue Department Inc., 7:12-CV-354-FL. (E.D.N.C. Mar. 10, 2015), North Carolina District Judge Louise W. Flanagan ruled that a Read Receipt automatically sent from the defendant’s email address to the plaintiff (when the defendant opened an email sent by the plaintiff) was not hearsay.

Case Background

In this wrongful termination case, the court was considering the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, as well as the defendants’ motion to strike certain exhibits attached to plaintiff’s brief in opposition to summary judgment for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c) & (e). One of the items that the defendants sought to exclude was a read receipt sent from defendant Grimes email address to plaintiff, triggered when an email plaintiff sent defendant Grimes was opened, arguing that the Read Receipt was ‘unauthenticated hearsay’.

Judge’s Opinion

Judge Flanagan made a swift ruling on this issue when she stated ‘Defendants’ argument fails. The Read Receipt is not hearsay.’ . . .

Continue reading →

The Art of Well Written Judicial Opinions.

17 Friday Apr 2015

Posted by in Judges, Legal Analysis, Legal Writing, Legalese, Plain Language, Readability

≈ Comments Off on The Art of Well Written Judicial Opinions.

Tags

, , , , , ,

The Seven Writing Strategies of Highly Effective Trial Judges, by Ross Guberman, Legal Writing Pro Blog

http://legalwritingpro.com/blog/the-seven-writing-strategies-of-highly-effective-trial-judges/

Asked to name the world’s best opinion writers, traditionalists might rattle off Lord Denning, Learned Hand, or Oliver Wendell Holmes. Modernists often prefer Antonin Scalia or Richard Posner. And the trendy might cite new kids on the block like Lord Sumption or Elena Kagan.

Those august names all deserve heaps of praise. But the fame that these judges enjoy raises questions of its own: Can you write a ‘great’ opinion if you’re a judge who’s not a household name, or even especially influential? And can you write a ‘great’ opinion in a case that’s not a high-profile constitutional crisis, but just another run-of-the-mill dispute in an overflowing docket?

I say ‘yes’ on both counts. No matter how routine a case, and no matter how little time you have, you can write a great opinion. It may not be ‘great’ for the ages, but it can offer readers a clear, accessible, and easy-to-follow analysis of your reasoning, with even a bit of flair or personality for good measure. . . .

Continue reading →