California Case Update

Status
Not open for further replies.
Shamil,

It's a good habit to break. You do not want to speak or write "like a lawyer." It will confuse or bore your listener. Never use a bigger or more complicated word or phrase if a simpler one will do. Your goal is not to impress your judge or jury with how many big words you can use. Generally, it is to either explain something or to persuade them. Big words often make this harder. Big words strung together make this much harder.
 
jadmperry said:
...Generally, it is to either explain something or to persuade them. Big words often make this harder. Big words strung together make this much harder.
Click to expand...
On the other hand, big words make a reader use the gray matter and think outside of 300-word vocabulary. Grown-ups should try to be grown-ups and improve themselves on challenge.

Shamil, keep posting updates the way you usually do. As a non-native speaker of English, I enjoy the richness of this language that has literary tradition dating back 11 centuries.
 
jadmperry said:
Shamil,

It's a good habit to break. You do not want to speak or write "like a lawyer." It will confuse or bore your listener. Never use a bigger or more complicated word or phrase if a simpler one will do. Your goal is not to impress your judge or jury with how many big words you can use. Generally, it is to either explain something or to persuade them. Big words often make this harder. Big words strung together make this much harder.
Click to expand...

Are you kidding? In a day and age where text speak is becoming more and more commonplace, and even used within day to day conversations, having someone use some proper English for once is actually refreshing.

If a person is unable to understand proper English then bad luck for them, they should have tried harder in school.

The paintballer forums actually enforce similar such rules on the board, the occasional "lol" or similar is allowed, but people who continually write using text speak are quickly shown the door.
 
Slavik said:
Are you kidding? In a day and age where text speak is becoming more and more commonplace, and even used within day to day conversations, having someone use some proper English for once is actually refreshing.

If a person is unable to understand proper English then bad luck for them, they should have tried harder in school.

The paintballer forums actually enforce similar such rules on the board, the occasional "lol" or similar is allowed, but people who continually write using text speak are quickly shown the door.
Click to expand...
lul wat? i n0 undrstnd wat u be say rpt can u?

Sorry I could resist :)
 
Slavik said:
Are you kidding? In a day and age where text speak is becoming more and more commonplace, and even used within day to day conversations, having someone use some proper English for once is actually refreshing.

If a person is unable to understand proper English then bad luck for them, they should have tried harder in school.

The paintballer forums actually enforce similar such rules on the board, the occasional "lol" or similar is allowed, but people who continually write using text speak are quickly shown the door.
Click to expand...

Looks like you are missing the point. Simpler and clearer writing is better than overly complicated writing. I was actually responding to Shamil to offer what is accepted in the legal profession: "legal-ese" and wordiness is discouraged. Justice Scalia and Prof. Bryan Garner have written a book together, Making Your Case: The Art of Persuading Judges, where they discuss these and other points. While I may be wrong, as far as the legal profession goes, at least in the US, I tend to credit the opinion of Supreme Court Justice's on legal writing.

But, if you prefer, continue to be an aficionado of loquacious speech. Communication in this manner may not adequately express your point to allow for full comprehension of your jeremiad by your intended audience. But it may serve a secondary purpose of allowing others to base their opinion and ultimate conclusions not on your actual precis, but rather on the mellifluous choice of words used. This may be preferable if one is not sure of what their actual view is but needs to state something because the situation demands it.

Me, I prefer Hemmingway's art of using short, declarative sentences. And Shamil and anyone else is free to discard my advice. No hurt feelings either way.
 
jadmperry said:
Looks like you are missing the point. Simpler and clearer writing is better than overly complicated writing. I was actually responding to Shamil to offer what is accepted in the legal profession: "legal-ese" and wordiness is discouraged. Justice Scalia and Prof. Bryan Garner have written a book together, Making Your Case: The Art of Persuading Judges, where they discuss these and other points. While I may be wrong, as far as the legal profession goes, at least in the US, I tend to credit the opinion of Supreme Court Justice's on legal writing.

But, if you prefer, continue to be an aficionado of loquacious speech. Communication in this manner may not adequately express your point to allow for full comprehension of your jeremiad by your intended audience. But it may serve a secondary purpose of allowing others to base their opinion and ultimate conclusions not on your actual precis, but rather on the mellifluous choice of words used. This may be preferable if one is not sure of what their actual view is but needs to state something because the situation demands it.

Me, I prefer Hemmingway's art of using short, declarative sentences. And Shamil and anyone else is free to discard my advice. No hurt feelings either way.
Click to expand...

I see your point and agree that sometimes overly convoluted sentences are a bit over the top, and also agree that in some situations, a short to the point sentence explains something better.

However on topic to what is being discussed here, I read Shamils posts with no degree of uncertainty and think there should be no reason for him to change.
 
I wonder how many years they can stretch this and how many side tracks they can create. And how many IB employees will be thrown under the bus for this.
 
jadmperry said:
Looks like you are missing the point. Simpler and clearer writing is better than overly complicated writing. I was actually responding to Shamil to offer what is accepted in the legal profession: "legal-ese" and wordiness is discouraged. Justice Scalia and Prof. Bryan Garner have written a book together, Making Your Case: The Art of Persuading Judges, where they discuss these and other points. While I may be wrong, as far as the legal profession goes, at least in the US, I tend to credit the opinion of Supreme Court Justice's on legal writing.

But, if you prefer, continue to be an aficionado of loquacious speech. Communication in this manner may not adequately express your point to allow for full comprehension of your jeremiad by your intended audience. But it may serve a secondary purpose of allowing others to base their opinion and ultimate conclusions not on your actual precis, but rather on the mellifluous choice of words used. This may be preferable if one is not sure of what their actual view is but needs to state something because the situation demands it.

Me, I prefer Hemmingway's art of using short, declarative sentences. And Shamil and anyone else is free to discard my advice. No hurt feelings either way.
Click to expand...
I think it should be mixed. Also, I have a cousin named Loquacious. o_O
 
Book better titled as "How to Convince the Judge's Clerk and Win Your Case." I have always been a fan of straight, simple talk, only using a specific word when there is a purpose or where another isn't adequately or just doesn't suffice. For a sophisticated crowd, sometimes choosing one more "accurate" synonym over another can make a subtle but important difference. But that doesn't excuse using a more complicated word that few are likely to know (which makes one sound pretentious.) You're better erring on the side of comprehension rather than hoping to score bonus points by adding unnecessary complexity.

IMHO, good for Shamil. So he derives some pleasure in covering this case and providing updates to other people who are grateful. Sometimes you don't need a reason other than that you enjoy being the one who is reporting the events. After all, millions of bloggers "waste" their time on far more trivial and useless matters while this one has a good purpose. Rock on, Shamil.
 
In case it got lost in my interwebz post, I was not trying to dig at Shamil. I think it's great he is dedicated and find it helpful that he takes the time to post the case updates. That said, I also think that if he wants to pursue a career in the law, he really should avoid routinely using jargon, legal-ese, or wordy sentences in his writing. I strongly believe that doing so is key to success as a legal professional. That was my real point, to try to help and offer some insight on how to succeed.
 
This case's existence is equivalent to drawing a technical foul while taking the open 3. It should never happen in a regulation court with league rules.
 
I think it differs in the USA to other countries, for example here in Australia, witty, complex verbal sparring in court is a reality of legal life.

I recall my Law professor on day one, lecture one, telling us that if you don't have a VERY sound grasp of English and a very nimble use of the language you will not make it through the course, nor in the Law at all.

Needless to say I am not a lawyer now.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom