• Home
  • About Me
  • Disclaimer

The Researching Paralegal

~ Articles and Research for Legal Professionals

The Researching Paralegal

Tag Archives: Ken Adams

Ken Adams Makes A Standing Offer.

27 Thursday Sep 2018

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Boilerplate Forms, Contract Law, Legal Writing

≈ Comments Off on Ken Adams Makes A Standing Offer.

Tags

Adams On Contract Drafting Blog, Contract Writing, Ken Adams

How I Would Go About Redrafting Your Templates, by Ken Adams, Adams On Contract Drafting Blog

http://www.adamsdrafting.com/how-i-would-go-about-redrafting-your-templates/

Ken Adams has made a “standing offer.” If you send him one of your contract templates, he will take the time to edit it.

Wow. Even if you are the best contract writer in the world, why wouldn’t you take Mr. Adams’ up on such a generous offer? Opportunities such as this do not come along every day. Thank you, Mr. Adams! -CCE

Share this:

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

Like this:

Like Loading...

Using Abbreviations and Definitions in Legal Writing.

19 Sunday Jun 2016

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Abbreviations, Contract Law, Legal Writing

≈ Comments Off on Using Abbreviations and Definitions in Legal Writing.

Tags

Adams On Contract Drafting Blog, Contracts, Ken Adams, Legal Writing

Don’t Use Definition-First Autonomous Definitions, by Ken Adams, Adams on Contract Drafting Blog

http://www.adamsdrafting.com/dont-use-definition-first-autonomous-definitions/

Ken Adams provides excellent examples of how to use an abbreviations and definitions. Use this for contracts, but keep in mind that it also works in pleadings, motions, discovery, etc.

When you use abbreviations and definitions for a person, a law, an event, or contract, it makes your writing tighter and more concise. It makes sense to abbreviate lengthy names, but take which definition you pick. While striving for a way to make your writing less wordy, don’t let the abbreviation or definition de-humanize your client or overly sanitize your client’s case. -CCE

Share this:

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

Like this:

Like Loading...

Classic Legal Writing Never Goes Out Of Style.

11 Friday Sep 2015

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Bad Legal Writing, Contract Law, Legal Writing, Plain Language, Readability

≈ Comments Off on Classic Legal Writing Never Goes Out Of Style.

Tags

Adams on Contract Drafting, Joe Kimble, Ken Adams, Michigan Bar Journal, Plain Language

30 Years of the Michigan Bar Journal’s “Plain Language” Column, by Ken Adams, Adams on Contract Drafting

http://www.adamsdrafting.com/30-years-of-the-michigan-bar-journals-plain-language-column/

The Michigan Bar Journal’s ‘Plain Language’ column recently celebrated its thirtieth year. Joe Kimble, its longtime editor, wrote this piece marking the event. . . .

Continue reading →

Share this:

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

Like this:

Like Loading...

Promises, Promises.

23 Saturday May 2015

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Contract Law, Legal Writing

≈ Comments Off on Promises, Promises.

Tags

Adams On Contract Drafting Blog, Contracts, Ken Adams, Legal Writing

“Promises That” and “Promises To, by Ken Adams, Adams On Contract Drafting Blog

http://www.adamsdrafting.com/promises-that-and-promises-to/

For the sheer heck of it, let’s look at how the verb promises is used in contracts. . . .

Share this:

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

Like this:

Like Loading...

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

02 Saturday May 2015

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP 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

Adams on Contract Drafting, Contract Writing, Ken Adams, Legal Writing, Strunk and White, Writing Numbers

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 →

Share this:

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

Like this:

Like Loading...

Ken Adams Shares What It Takes To Be A Great Contract Writer.

02 Monday Mar 2015

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Boilerplate Forms, Boilerplate Forms, Contract Law, Editing, Legal Writing, Legalese, Readability, Style Manuals

≈ Comments Off on Ken Adams Shares What It Takes To Be A Great Contract Writer.

Tags

Adams on Contract Drafting, Contracts, Ken Adams, Legal Drafting, Style Manuals

What It Takes to Be a Great Contract Drafter, by Ken Adams, Adams On Contract Drafting

http://www.adamsdrafting.com/what-it-takes-to-be-a-great-contract-drafter/

If you write or work with contracts, this is a “must read” post by Ken Adams. Drafting a good contract is a special type of legal writing. A good, solid contract is a work of art. Also, please don’t ignore the Comments at the end of the post. There’s more good information there as well. -CCE

Here’s what it takes to be a great contract drafter:

Know the deal mechanics. As a drafter, it’s your job to express the transaction in a way that advances your client’s interests most effectively. You can’t do that unless you’re aware of the full range of options for structuring the deal. I don’t mean to suggest that you yourself have to possess that information—it’s enough if you’re able to pick the brains of people with that information.

Know the law. With some transactions, there’s no need for the law to rear its head in the contract. In other transactions, it would be appropriate, or necessary, for the law to feature in the contract. I discuss that in this 2013 post. As drafter, it’s your job to figure out what role, if any, the law plays in your transaction. Again, it’s enough if you can get that information from others.

Follow a comprehensive style guide. You don’t follow a comprehensive set of guidelines for the building blocks of contract language? Sorry, you’re not a great drafter. You’re not even a good drafter. Instead, you’re parroting whatever contract language you copy, which is likely dysfunctional. You’re following conventional wisdom, which more often than not is bogus. Don’t throw at me your education, your reputation, your long list of publications, your compensation, your track record as a dealmaker. They’re all beside the point. Of course, the only set of guidelines out there is A Manual of Style for Contract Drafting, but don’t hold that against me. I’m not stopping anyone else from producing their own comprehensive set of guidelines. And following my guidelines isn’t rocket science. . . .

Continue reading →

Share this:

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

Like this:

Like Loading...

“Know All Men By These Presents” — Who’s Getting All The Gifts?

17 Tuesday Feb 2015

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Bad Legal Writing, Boilerplate Forms, Boilerplate Forms, Contract Law, Legal Writing, Legalese

≈ Comments Off on “Know All Men By These Presents” — Who’s Getting All The Gifts?

Tags

Ken Adams, Legal Writing, Legalese, Raymond Ward, the (new) legal writer blog

Presents? Thank You Very — Oh, by Raymond Ward, the (new) legal writer blog

http://raymondpward.typepad.com/newlegalwriter/2012/01/presents-thank-you-very-oh.html

Every time I see the silly phrase ‘Know all men by these presents,’ I think of Christmas. Perhaps a statement the Magi wanted to make about their presents for the Christ child. Nevertheless, I’m no expert on drafting contracts: on that subject, I defer to Ken Adams, who riffs on the silly phrase in this post.

Can I get a witnesseth?

Share this:

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

Like this:

Like Loading...

Impose An Obligation On Someone To Control Something They Can’t Really Control – What’s The Point?

16 Monday Feb 2015

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Breach, Contract Law, Intentional Promise, Performance

≈ Comments Off on Impose An Obligation On Someone To Control Something They Can’t Really Control – What’s The Point?

Tags

Adams on Contract Drafting, Breach of Contract, Failure of Performance, Ken Adams, Shall Cause

A Reminder About “Shall Cause,” by Ken Adams, Adams On Contract Drafting

http://www.adamsdrafting.com/a-reminder-about-shall-cause/

Reed Smith has published an inaugural issue of Contract-Drafting Bulletin. One item was of particular interest to me. It’s about an October 2014 opinion from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, World of Boxing LLC v. King (PDF copy here).

Here’s the gist of it: In May 2013, boxers Guillermo Jones and Denis Lebedev fought, with Jones winning. But after the bout Jones failed a drug test and was stripped of the win. In January 2014, boxing promoters Don King and WOB entered into an “agreement in principle” in which King promised to “cause Jones [ ] to participate” in a rematch. But before the rematch, Jones failed another drug test, so Lebedev withdrew.

In the resulting litigation, WOB claimed that King breached their contract by failing to cause Jones to participate in the match. The court agreed (footnotes omitted):

If Jones could not participate in the bout, it follows a fortiori that King could not have caused Jones to participate in the bout. Therefore, King breached the Agreement.

King protests that this interpretation of the Agreement yields “unreasonable and illogical” results. It would require of King “nothing less than … personal supervision of Jones’s every action between the execution of [the Agreement] and the scheduled date of the [bout against Lebedev].” Indeed, in order to avoid liability, King avers that he would have had “to imprison Jones to prevent him from having any access to a banned substance”—clearly an untenable outcome.

While these arguments might have force, they are addressed to the wrong issue. King could be right: under the circumstances, it is possible that his contractual obligations were too onerous to be enforceable. But that question goes to whether King’s failure to perform may be excused, not to whether King in fact failed to perform. As to the latter, Jones’s disqualification plainly put King in breach.

The court then went on to hold that King’s impossibility defense didn’t excuse his breach.

So, what does this case have to say to contract drafters? . . . .

Continue reading →

Share this:

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

Like this:

Like Loading...

Write Contracts That Avoid Confusion When Circumstances Change.

30 Friday Jan 2015

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Contract Law

≈ Comments Off on Write Contracts That Avoid Confusion When Circumstances Change.

Tags

Adams On Drafting, Contractes, Ken Adams, Legal riting

Being Specific in Contracts Can Help Avoid Confusion When Circumstances Change, by Ken Adams, Adams On Contract Drafting

http://tinyurl.com/q7wma8d

Recently Eric Goldman (otherwise know as @ericgoldman) alerted me to In re SuperMedia, Inc., an opinion by the Delaware U.S. Bankruptcy Court. (Go here for a PDF copy.) It has a lesson to offer regarding how to avoid confusion over whether contract terms apply to changed circumstances. . . .

Continue reading →

Share this:

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

Like this:

Like Loading...

Bet You Can’t Guess Ken Adams’ Opinion of “Boilerplate” Contract Forms.

29 Monday Dec 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Boilerplate Forms, Contract Law, Legal Writing

≈ Comments Off on Bet You Can’t Guess Ken Adams’ Opinion of “Boilerplate” Contract Forms.

Tags

Adams on Contract Drafting, Boilerplate Forms, Clio, Contract Law, EDGAR, Ken Adams, Legal Writing, LegalZoom, Rocket Lawyer

The Sad Truth About Promiscuous Copying of Contract Language, by Ken Adams, Adams on Contract Drafting

http://tinyurl.com/loyhwy6

I recently came across this blog post on Clio’s website. Clio is software that handles time and billing, calendaring, and collaboration, but this blog post is about something else—how law firms can use ‘commercial legal forms.’ It suggests three possible uses: You can copy them. You can resell them. Or you can create and sell your own. Here’s my take on the first of those suggestions.

The author says that if you’re looking to copy ‘boilerplate,’ you can get it from three sources:

  • from your own files
  • from ‘the same vast library of forms and templates that the public now enjoys,’ which ‘are often crafted by experienced lawyers’
  • from forms sold by the likes of LegalZoom and Rocket Lawyer, one advantage being that checking those forms would ‘take a fraction of the time that would have been spent of compiling a rough draft from scratch’

Regular readers will know that I find the latter two options depressing. Good luck relying on anything you find in, say, the great flea market that is the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s EDGAR system. As for relying on the LegalZooms and Rocket Lawyers of the world, go here for my critique of a LegalZoom contract and go here for my critique of a Rocket Lawyer contract.

The sad fact is that plucking contract language from the random mass and then checking it and revising it appropriately requires serious skill and is time-consuming, despite what the Clio author says. Given the cold realities of quality control, the something-for-nothing appeal of promiscuous copying of contract language is an illusion.

Copying contract language without that sort of scrutiny requires a leap of faith; if you’re putting your faith in some contract you found in a few minutes of rooting around online, you’re screwed before you even start.

Incidentally, given that Clio is now offering advice about where to copy from, I’ll now start writing about time-management software! Not really.

 

Share this:

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

Like this:

Like Loading...

Is It “Shall Not . . . Unless” Or “May . . . Only If”?

09 Tuesday Dec 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Contract Law, Legal Writing

≈ Comments Off on Is It “Shall Not . . . Unless” Or “May . . . Only If”?

Tags

Adams On Contract Drafting Blog, Contract Writing, Contracts, Ken Adams, Legal Writing

“Shall Not … Unless” Versus “May … Only If” (Updated!), by Ken Adams, Adams On Contract Drafting Blog

http://tinyurl.com/mdnboct

One of the privileges of blogging is that it gives you the opportunity to talk utter BS without doing much damage. A case in point is this post, originally published on August 4, 2014.

To recap, the issue was whether one of the two following alternatives was preferable to the other:

Acme shall not sell the Shares unless Widgetco consents.
Acme may sell the Shares only if Widgetco consents.

In an August 6 update I opted for the version with shall not, saying that it avoids the uncertainty inherent in the version using may … only. Well, I’m here to tell you that that’s incorrect, in that both versions incorporate uncertainty.

In the version with shall not, the question is what category of contract language applies if Widgetco consents. Our old friend the expectation of relevance (more about that here) suggests that Acme may sell the Shares if Widgetco consents, but it’s conceivable that it might instead be obligated to sell the Shares if Widgetco consents.

And in the version with may . . . only, the expectation of relevance suggests that Acme may not sell the Shares if Widgetco doesn’t consent, but it’s conceivable that it might instead be obligated to sell the Shares if Widgetco doesn’t consent.

So in terms of uncertainty, there’s nothing to choose between the two. To eliminate that uncertainty you’d have to say the following:

Acme shall not sell the Shares, but it may sell the Shares if Widgetco consents.

(You could say instead Acme shall not sell the Shares unless Widgetco consents, in which case Acme may sell the Shares, but I have a slight preference for the version using except, as it’s shorter.)

Would I go to the trouble of eliminating the expectation of relevance? I think so, but I acknowledge that doing so would be pretty hard-core.

If you don’t want to eliminate the expectation of relevance, which of the two original options would I go for now? Still the version with shall not. The default position is that absent contract restrictions, one may do stuff, so it follows that it’s the prohibition that has teeth; I’d lead with it.

Share this:

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

Like this:

Like Loading...

Compilation of Ken Adams’ Articles on Contract Drafting.

25 Saturday Oct 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Contract Law, Legal Writing, Recent Links and Articles

≈ Comments Off on Compilation of Ken Adams’ Articles on Contract Drafting.

Tags

Adams On Contract Drafting Blog, AdamsDrafting Blog, Contract Law, Ken Adams, Legal Writing, The Koncise Drafter

Ken Adams’s Articles, Adams on Contract Drafting Blog

http://www.adamsdrafting.com/writing/ken-adamss-articles/

In addition to Ken’s posts from February 2013, this blog contains Ken’s posts from The Koncise Drafter (from December 2010 to February 2013) and from the AdamsDrafting blog (from May 2006 to December 2010).

 

Share this:

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

Like this:

Like Loading...

Is It Herein, Hereunder, Or Over Yonder?

10 Monday Feb 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, Bad Legal Writing, Contract Law, Legal Analysis, Legal Writing, Legalese

≈ Comments Off on Is It Herein, Hereunder, Or Over Yonder?

Tags

Adams On Contracting Blog, Ambiguity, Bayerische Landesbank New York Branch v. Aladdin Capital Mgmt. LLC, Contract Law, Herein, Hereunder, Ken Adams, Legal Writing, Paul Hastings

“Herein” (And I Need A Label For This Kind Of Ambiguity), by Ken Adams, Adams on Contract Drafting Blog

http://tinyurl.com/lg9nuer

Ken Adams explains why to avoid “herein,” “hereunder,” and antecedent ambiguity when drafting contracts. -CCE

I’ve previously entertained you with court opinions addressing confusion over what part of a contract is being referred to in a contract provision. Who can forget the confusion over a “hereunder”? (See this post). Or over “except as provided below”? (See this post.)

Well, I have another treat for you. (Yes, I know, I’m too generous.)

The case is Bayerische Landesbank, New York Branch v. Aladdin Capital Mgmt. LLC, 692 F.3d 42 (2d Cir. 2012) (PDF here). (I learned about it from this Paul Hastings newsletter.)

Share this:

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

Like this:

Like Loading...

Proper Punctuation Matters, Especially When Drafting Contracts.

25 Saturday Jan 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, Contract Law, Legal Writing

≈ Comments Off on Proper Punctuation Matters, Especially When Drafting Contracts.

Tags

Adams On Contract Drafting Blog, American International Group Inc., Bank of America Corp., How Things Work, Julia Layton, Ken Adams, Legal Writing, Punctuation, United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

My Forthcoming Article, “Bamboozled by a Comma: The Second Circuit’s Misdiagnosis of Ambiguity in American International Group, Inc. v. Bank of America Corp.” by Ken Adams, Adams On Contract Drafting Blog (to be published in 16 Scribes J. Legal Writing (forthcoming 2014).

http://tinyurl.com/kzvf8e2

It may sound picky but, as Ken Adams’ example illustrates in this post, proper punctuation matters. A misplaced comma can completely change the meaning of a sentence.

A refresher on how to use commas properly never hurts. Julia Layton explains “10 Completely Wrong Ways to Use Commas” on How Stuff Works. -CCE

http://people.howstuffworks.com/10-wrong-ways-to-use-commas.htm

Share this:

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

Like this:

Like Loading...

Ending Confusion To End Litigation.

18 Monday Nov 2013

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Bad Legal Writing, Contract Law, Legal Writing, Legalese

≈ Comments Off on Ending Confusion To End Litigation.

Tags

Contracts, Ken Adams, Legal Writing, Legalese

More Antecedent Ambiguity: “Thereof,” by Ken Adams, Adams on Contract Drafting

http://tinyurl.com/n7fup2u

Do we use legalese because we think it simply sounds “legal”? Why do we choose legalese over plain, clear writing? There is no statute, court rule, or case law that requires it. These words are not a legal term of art. Why do we cling to it with such a passion? CCE

Share this:

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

Like this:

Like Loading...

Contract Gobbledygook

30 Wednesday Oct 2013

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

≈ Comments Off on Contract Gobbledygook

Tags

Contracts, Ken Adams, Legal Writing

A New Case Involving “Notwithstanding,” by Ken Adams, Adams on Contract Drafting (with hat tip to Raymond Ward, the (new) legal writer!)

http://perma.cc/0zV6mAk3xm5

“Arising Out Of Or Relating To?” No, Thank You, by Ken Adams, Adams on Contract Drafting

http://perma.cc/0i4M2PnNost

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 454 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: