• Home
  • About Me
  • Disclaimer

The Researching Paralegal

~ Articles and Research for Legal Professionals

The Researching Paralegal

Tag Archives: Editing

“No Passion in the World is Equal to the Passion to Alter Someone Else’s Draft.” H.G. Wells

20 Wednesday Dec 2017

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Bad Legal Writing, Brief Writing, Editing, Legal Writing, Legalese, Persuasive Writing, Plain Language, Punctuation, Readability

≈ Comments Off on “No Passion in the World is Equal to the Passion to Alter Someone Else’s Draft.” H.G. Wells

Tags

Douglas E. Abrams, Editing, Legal Writing, Missouri Bar Journal, SSRN, University of Missouri School of Law

We are the Products of Editing, Douglas E. Abrams, Precedent, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 12-14, Spring 2008; University of Missouri School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2008-18.

Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1138300 

How many of us take the time to proof and edit what we write? I suspect that most, if not all, good legal writers do it. No, I’m not talking about simply running a review of your grammar, style, and punctuation in Microsoft Word. I mean really reading, proofing, and editing what you write.

When you write for the court, what is your goal? To be understood? Of course. To persuade? Absolutely. To do that, you must keep your reader’s attention. Long sentences that take up an entire paragraph, legalese, and unnecessary words are boring – period. Why would anyone want to read a quote takes up an entire page?

Persuasive legal writing is an art. It takes work, and that means editing and polishing until your writing is clear, concise, and logically flows from one point to the next. Your goal, as I’ve mentioned before, is that, by the time your judge finishes reading your brief or other document, that judge is subconsciously nodding in agreement.

As someone who has seen a state supreme court judge literally throw a party’s brief across the room because it was so badly written, I promise that judges will not waste time reading legal gibberish. If a judge finds one side‘s brief difficult to read, how much frustration does it take to put it down and pick up the other side’s well-written brief to get the facts of the case and legal argument? Folks, it doesn’t take much.

Don’t take my word for it. Mr. Abrams’ article does an excellent job. -CCE

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

What Will Ignoring the Court Rules Get You? A Big Fat Benchslap.

08 Tuesday Aug 2017

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Bad Legal Writing, Benchslap, Brief Writing, Editing, Footnotes, Judges, Legal Writing, Motions, Plain Language, Proofreading, Readability

≈ Comments Off on What Will Ignoring the Court Rules Get You? A Big Fat Benchslap.

Tags

Court Rules, Editing, Findlaw, George Khoury, Legal Writing, William P. Statsky

Florida Judge Tosses Improperly Spaced Court Filing, by George Khoury, Esq., Strategist, The Findlaw Law Firm Business Blog  (with hat tip to William P. Statsky)

http://bit.ly/2uP9FyB

Mr. Khoury says that “[h]ell hath no fury like a Florida judge who receives an improperly formatted brief.” You better believe it. Why on earth would you ignore the format requirements in your court’s local rules? Folks, this just isn’t that hard.

The author of this motion for summary judgment thought the court would either ignore or not notice that the motion and supporting brief were spaced 1-1/2 lines rather than double-spaced. And who’s going to notice longer-than-usual footnotes? Really? Any judge or clerk whose job it is to read, read, and then read some more every dad-gum day.

Seriously, do you want to plow through heavy footnotes? Hands? Didn’t think so. Neither does your judge. Why risk alienating the person you are trying to convince? The stakes are too high to cling to a style of writing that sets you up to lose before anyone reads your motion or brief.

There are other, and much more effective ways, to trim a motion and brief. Editing is the key.

  1. Eliminate any unnecessary word.
  2. Remember that subject and verbs go together.
  3. Use short sentences.
  4. Delete all legalese. Yes, all of it. No excuses.
  5. You can always delete “in order.” Try it – it will not change the meaning in your sentence. These are an example of filler words that just take up space.
  6. Stop using phrases such as “brief of the plaintiff.” Write “plaintiff’s brief” instead.
  7. Never, never, never use long block quotations.
  8. Quote from a court opinion only when the court says it better than you can.

A quick search of this blog will give you tons of editing tips. I promise that you can get your point across with fewer words. It is not the number of words you use that count; it is what words you choose and how you say it. -CCE

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

Legal Writing – Why Shorter is Better.

08 Thursday Dec 2016

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Editing, Legal Writing, Legalese, Readability

≈ Comments Off on Legal Writing – Why Shorter is Better.

Tags

Editing, Good Legal Writing Blog, Legal Writing, Rule of Short, Tiffany Johnson

Make it shorter … and shorter …, by Tiffany Johnson, Good Legal Writing Blog

https://goodlegalwriting.com/2011/02/11/make-it-shorter-and-shorter/

Regardless of whether, in your own opinion, you are a good writer, we can always improve. Here is an opportunity to polish your skills, take note of some bad habits, and hone your editing technique. -CCE

Here’s a good exercise to promote plain writing and dense writing.  The object is to force you to purge your writing of any words that don’t work their butts off on your behalf.  Take the following sentence and reduce it to as few words as humanly possible, without changing the meaning of the sentence.  Shortest re-write wins a prize (respect)!

Continue reading →

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

Are You Guilty of Using Any of These Overly Used Words?

02 Saturday Jan 2016

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Bad Legal Writing, Editing, Legal Writing, Readability

≈ Comments Off on Are You Guilty of Using Any of These Overly Used Words?

Tags

Blossom Blog, Editing, Good Writing Habits, Laurie Pawlik-Kienlen, Legal Writing, Overly Used Words

51 Over-Used Adverbs, Nouns, and Clichés in Writing, by Laurie Pawlik-Kienlen, Blossom Blog

http://theadventurouswriter.com/blogwriting/51-over-used-adverbs-nouns-and-cliches-in-writing/

This post is like preaching to the choir. I found several words that I often use on this list. Time for a New Year’s Resolution! Remove these words from our writing and vocabulary. -CCE

Do you want your writing to get noticed – in a good way? Ditch these over-used adverbs, nouns, and cliches when writing articles, stories, and books.

*             *                  *

I promised a reader in the comments section of 5 Over-Used Words and Phrases for Writers to Avoid that I’d write this post . . . and here it finally is . . . better late than never. What’s that you say? The cliché ‘better late than never’ is over-used and boring, and belongs on my “over-used words and phrases in writing” list? If you caught that, you get a gold star! (jeez, there I go again with the tired clichés).

Ditch these boring words and phrases! Stop using amorphous adverbs and namby-pamby nouns! Delete crummy clichés!

And, here are 51 over-used words and phrases in writing – which I hope helps you become a more successful, confident writer. Compiling this list has certainly opened my eyes to my own weak writing habits…

Continue reading →

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

Quick Legal Writing Course.

24 Thursday Dec 2015

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Bad Legal Writing, Editing, Grammar, Legal Writing

≈ Comments Off on Quick Legal Writing Course.

Tags

Editing, Gary Kinder, Grammar, Legal Productivity, Legal Writing

Video: A Down and Dirty Writing, Editing and Grammar Course For Lawyers, Gary Kinder, Legal Productivity®

http://www.legalproductivity.com/webinars/video-writing-for-lawyers/

Regardless of how good your legal writing may be, there is always room for improvement. Like anything else, your writing skills improve with practice. 

You may not think your writing skills are less than ideal. You may not think it’s a big deal – who cares whether your grammar or punctuation is perfect? Actually, most people, including clients. -CCE

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

Plain Language Examples – Before and After.

16 Friday Oct 2015

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Bad Legal Writing, Editing, Grammar, Legal Writing, Legalese, Plain Language, Proofreading, Punctuation, Readability

≈ Comments Off on Plain Language Examples – Before and After.

Tags

Editing, Grammar & Punctuation, Legal Writing, Plain Language, Readability

Before-and-After Comparisons, PlainLanguge.gov

http://www.plainlanguage.gov/examples/before_after/index.cfm

There are a number of superior – and free – websites available to anyone who wants to improve his legal writing skills. PlainLaguage.gov is one of them.

I doubt that anyone wants to write poorly. Often, just showing before-and-after examples improve writing skills. One of the most efficient ways I have found when teaching legal writing is to take a bad writing example, identify why it is ineffective or just plain silly, and suggest different ways to fix it.

Here are examples of government regulations, manuals, handbooks, reports, and other publications that show “before and after” examples that use plain language to improve a sentence, paragraph, or document. -CCE

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

4 Writing Tips For Persuasive Briefs.

29 Tuesday Sep 2015

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Bad Legal Writing, Brief Writing, Editing, Legal Argument, Legal Writing, Persuasive Writing, Readability

≈ Comments Off on 4 Writing Tips For Persuasive Briefs.

Tags

Active Voice, Editing, Lawyerist Blog, Legal Writing, Mark Herrmann, Raymond Ward

4 Edits I’ve Never Made, by Mark Herrmann, Lawyerists Blog (with hat tip to Raymond Ward!)

http://abovethelaw.com/2015/09/4-edits-i-have-never-made/

I have revised an awful lot of briefs in my life.

I clerked for a year; worked as a litigation associate at a small firm for five years; worked first as an associate (for three years) and then as a litigation partner (for 17 years) at one of the world’s largest firms; and have now served as the head of litigation at a Fortune 250 firm for the last five years.

I repeat: I have revised an awful lot of briefs in my life.

There’s been a world of variety in the substance of briefs that I’ve revised. Labor law, First Amendment cases, commercial disputes, product liability cases, tax spats, securities fraud, insurance and reinsurance matters, IP cases; you name it.

But there’s been almost no variety in the revisions that I’ve made to briefs.

As I’ve ranted before, I’ve spent my decades generally making all the same changes to draft briefs.

So I’m not going to list here the usual edits that briefs need. I’m going to do the opposite: What edits have I never made to a brief over the course of three decades practicing law? . . . .

Continue reading →

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

Excellent Editing Tips From Jonathan Van Patton.

09 Saturday May 2015

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Bad Legal Writing, Editing, Legal Argument, Legal Writing, Readability

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

Tags

Editing, Jonathan Van Patten, Legal Skills Prof Blog, Legal Writing, Louis J. Sirico Jr., Persuasive Writing, South Dakota Law Review, William P. Statsky

“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.

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

How Are Your Punctuation Skills?

21 Sunday Dec 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Editing, Legal Writing, Proofreading, Readability

≈ Comments Off on How Are Your Punctuation Skills?

Tags

ABA Journal, Editing, Jack McNeill, Legal Writing, Pace Law Library Blog, Punctuation, William P. Statsky

Improve Your Writing Skills. How Would You Punctuate these Paragraphs?, by Jack McNeill, Pace Law Library Blog (with hat tip to William P. Statsky!)

http://tinyurl.com/ovqs4qr

Bill Statsky ran across this jewel, and was kind enough to send it along. Regardless of how well we think we write, there is room for improvement for many of us, myself included. Exercises such as this help to hone our skills. -CCE

From the ABA Journal we have this challenge. Two paragraphs are proposed. They include no punctuation. How would you punctuate them? Proper punctuation improves the clarity and flow of your writing. Try your skills. Later in the article the paragraphs are shown professionally edited. If you did not do well against the professional, think about how the professional approached the paragraphs and what you might do to use those skills to improve your own writing. The article is here: How are your punctuation skills? Try this comparison exercise to find out.

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

In Legal Writing, Why Less Really Is More. Really, Really.

13 Saturday Dec 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Appellate Writing, Bad Legal Writing, Brief Writing, Editing, Jury Instructions, Legal Argument, Legal Writing, Readability, Statement of Facts, Summary of the Argument

≈ Comments Off on In Legal Writing, Why Less Really Is More. Really, Really.

Tags

Editing, Legal Writing, Raymond Ward, Readability, the (new) legal writer blog

Less is more. Really. by Raymond Ward, the (new) legal writer blog

http://tinyurl.com/l94vnyd

If you really have the goods, modesty is more effective than piling it on. Mark Herrmann explains this principle.

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

Garner’s Ten Legal Writing Tips.

05 Sunday Oct 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Briefing Cases, Citations, Editing, Legal Analysis, Legal Argument, Legal Writing, Proofreading, Public Domain Citations, Readability, Spell Checking, The Bluebook

≈ Comments Off on Garner’s Ten Legal Writing Tips.

Tags

ABA Journal, Bryan Garner, Computer Legal Research, Editing, Legal Analysis, Legal Citations, Legal Writing, Proofreading

Ten Tips for Legal Writing, by Judith D. Fischer, Legal Writing Prof Blog

http://tinyurl.com/pwlxeyt

Bryan Garner’s latest article in in the ABA Journal is titled Ten Tips for Better Legal Writing. Some Garner of his tips are especially appropriate for law students, who could appropriately paste ‘Don’t rely exclusively on computer research’ on the wall by their work space. That would serve as a reminder that unfocused computer searches are like a box of chocolates–you never know what you’re going to get.  Garner also advises legal writers to be neither too tentative nor too cocksure in their conclusions, both of which are hazards for beginning law students. And Garner’s tenth tip would improve the professionalism of many a student paper: ‘Proofread one more time than you think necessary.’

 

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

Classic Writing Tips From C.S. Lewis.

01 Tuesday Jul 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Bad Legal Writing, Legal Writing, Legalese, Plain Language, Proofreading, Readability

≈ Comments Off on Classic Writing Tips From C.S. Lewis.

Tags

C.S. Lewis, Editing, Ethos3, Grammar and Punctuation, Legal Writing, Plain Language, Readability, Scott Schwertly

5 Writing Tips by C.S. Lewis, the Purveyor of Childhood, by Scott Schwertly, the Founder and CEO of Ethos3

http://tinyurl.com/qzawhfs

It’s pretty likely that C.S. Lewis brought you a little bit of happiness when you were a child. As author of the ‘Chronicles of Naria’ series, C.S. Lewis created one of the most beloved children series of all time. As a result, he got loads of fan mail from his biggest fans: children. And being the nice purveyor of childhood glee that he was, he managed to respond to many of the letters, including one from Joan Lancaster, in which he included several tips on writing. Let’s see what we can learn about presentations from his poignant advice.

1. Always try to use the language so as to make quite clear what you mean and make sure your sentence couldn’t mean anything else.

This is great advice for the presenter as our job is disseminate information as clearly and simply as possible. In order to do so, use language that tells the audience what they need to know in the simplest way possible. Say what you want to say as simply as possible. Don’t overcomplicate your language for no reason.

2. Always prefer the plain direct word to the long, vague one. Don’t implement promises, but keep them.

This goes hand in hand with Lewis’s previous nugget of advice. Use plain, direct language in your presentation. You won’t sound smarter by using a ten-dollar word when a five-dollar word will do. Rather, you might come across as pretentious. Don’t alienate your audience with obscure language. Be as direct as possible.

3. Never use abstract nouns when concrete ones will do. If you mean ‘More people died’ don’t say ‘Mortality rose.’

Mr. Lewis is adamant about the importance of clear, direct language, isn’t he? Minimize abstraction as much as possible with the language you use. Be as clear and concrete as possible.

4. In writing. Don’t use adjectives which merely tell us how you want us to feel about the thing you are describing. I mean, instead of telling us a thing was ‘terrible,’ describe it so that we’ll be terrified. Don’t say it was ‘delightful’; make us say ‘delightfu’ when we’ve read the description. You see, all those words (horrifying, wonderful, hideous, exquisite) are only like saying to your readers, ‘Please will you do my job for me.’

This may be the best bit of Lewis’s advice, as it’s basically a snarky version of ‘show, don’t tell.’ Engage your audience by using vivid language that describes a situation instead of simply telling the audience how it made you feel using a range of blasé adjectives. Remember Jerry Weissman’s advice: Don’t make the audience think. Describe situations so clearly and in such a compelling nature that the audience won’t have any question as to what happened or how it made you feel.

5. Don’t use words too big for the subject. Don’t say ‘infinitely’ when you mean ‘very’; otherwise you’ll have no word left when you want to talk about something really infinite.

Lewis’s last piece of advice again addresses the need to use clear, precise language. Don’t exaggerate in your description of something as that would be an easy way to mislead your audience. Above all, if we are to follow Lewis’s advice in our presentations, use language that is as direct and to-the-point as possible. Your presentation will be much more accessible and well-received if you eliminate abstract, unclear language altogether.

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

George Orwell’s “Politics and the English Language”

01 Tuesday Jul 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Bad Legal Writing, Editing, Legal Writing, Legalese, Plain Language, Proofreading, Readability

≈ Comments Off on George Orwell’s “Politics and the English Language”

Tags

Bad Legal Writing, Editing, George Orwell, Grammar and Punctuation, Legal Writing, Legalese, Plain Language, Politics and the English Language, Proofreading

Politics and the English Language, George Orwell’s Library

http://tinyurl.com/nsagx

Orwell’s 1946 essay, “Politics and the English Language” is a classic. Mr. Orwell actually had six, not five, excellent rules for effective writing. Follow these rules, and you cannot go wrong. -CCE

1. Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.

2. Never use a long word where a short one will do.

3. If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.

4. Never use the passive where you can use the active.

5. Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.

6. Break any of these rules sooner than saying anything outright barbarous.

 

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

Checked Your Readability Score Lately?

28 Saturday Jun 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Bad Legal Writing, Brief Writing, Editing, Legal Writing, Legalese, Microsoft Office, Plain Language, Proofreading, Word

≈ Comments Off on Checked Your Readability Score Lately?

Tags

Above the Law (blog), Bad Legal Writing, Editing, Legal Writing, Mark Herrmann, Microsoft Word, Readabilty Score, Steve Dykstra

Expose Your Weakness — Now! by Mark Herrmann, Above the Law Blog

http://abovethelaw.com/2014/06/expose-your-weakness-now/

Think you can write? Do these four things.

First, pull out the last brief that you wrote.

Not that one — that’s the final version, edited by guys who could write. We’re looking for your work, untouched by others. Find the unedited draft that you first circulated. (If you don’t have a draft brief handy, that’s okay. Find the last long email that you sent to someone who matters — to the partner, the client, the general counsel, or the CEO.)

Second, click through this link, which will tell you how to enable Microsoft Word’s ‘readability’ feature on your computer. Enable that feature.

Third, let the readability feature score your work.

Finally, take a handkerchief and wipe the spit out of your eye. (I bet you didn’t realize that a computer could spit in your eye.)

You didn’t notice the spit? Here it comes: Compare your readability score to the average readability score for the works of bestselling authors.

I didn’t even know about Microsoft’s readability feature until I published a column on legal writing last month. I argued in favor of using short sentences and the active voice. A reader — Steve Dykstra, who’s a legal recruiter and budding novelist in Toronto — promptly sent me an enlightening email. Steve also subjected my work — my column on legal writing — to Microsoft Word’s readability test. Steve then told me how my column compared to the work of bestselling authors. . . .

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

Controlling Crowded Sentences. Shorter Is Not Always Better?

22 Sunday Jun 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Editing, Legal Writing, Proofreading, Readability

≈ Comments Off on Controlling Crowded Sentences. Shorter Is Not Always Better?

Tags

Controlling Crowded Sentences, Editing, George Gopen, Judith D. Fischer, Legal Writing Prof, Legal Writing Prof Blog

Controlling Crowded Sentences, by Judith D. Fischer, Legal Writing Prof, Legal Writing Prof Blog

http://tinyurl.com/kacsecz

In his recent article Controlling Crowded Sentences, rhetorician George Gopen shows how to make Gopen the most of stress positions. He starts with a sample thirty-six word sentence and then revises it six different ways. Some revisions are a bit longer than the original, but Gopen emphasizes that ‘I do not hold with those who advise ‘to make it better, make it shorter.’ Each revision has a different purpose: one places a person in a subordinate role, and another builds empathy for her. The article appeared in the spring 2014 issue of Litigation.

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

Candy For Writers! Grammar Girl’s Editing Checklist.

14 Saturday Jun 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Legal Writing, Proofreading, Readability, Spell Checking

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

Editing, Grammar, Grammar Girl, Legal Writing, Mignon Fogary, Punctuation, Spellchecking, Writing

Grammar Girl’s Editing Checklist, Mignon Fogary, Grammar Girl Blog

http://tinyurl.com/qy3efup

At the end of a recent writing webcast, we distributed a Grammar Girl editing checklist that turned out to be so popular we decided to make it widely available. Print out the checklist and keep it on your desk as a handy reference to use when you’re editing.

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...
Follow The Researching Paralegal on WordPress.com

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Search

Sign In/Register

  • Register
  • Log in
  • Entries feed
  • Comments feed
  • WordPress.com

Categories

Archives

  • March 2022
  • January 2022
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • January 2021
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • October 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • May 2019
  • March 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013

Recent Comments

Eric Voigt on Top 20 Paralegal Blogs, Websit…
profvoigt on Research Guides in Focus – Mun…
Make Your PDF Docume… on Make Your PDF Document Edit-Pr…
madlaw291282999 on Using Hyperbole -Are You Riski…
How to Treat Bad Cli… on Why Do Bad Clients Deserve The…

Recent Comments

Eric Voigt on Top 20 Paralegal Blogs, Websit…
profvoigt on Research Guides in Focus – Mun…
Make Your PDF Docume… on Make Your PDF Document Edit-Pr…
madlaw291282999 on Using Hyperbole -Are You Riski…
How to Treat Bad Cli… on Why Do Bad Clients Deserve The…
  • RSS - Posts
  • RSS - Comments

Blog at WordPress.com.

  • Follow Following
    • The Researching Paralegal
    • Join 456 other followers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • The Researching Paralegal
    • Customize
    • Follow Following
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Report this content
    • View site in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar
 

Loading Comments...
 

You must be logged in to post a comment.

    %d bloggers like this: