Adware, American lawyers, and word usage
CyberCypher
Issue 48 — 2005.02.24
[quote]
Adware makers threaten critics
One iDownload letter, from attorney Mark D. Hopkins, a partner in the
Austin, Texas, office of Savrick Schumann Johnson McGarr Kaminsky &
Shirley, says in part: [The three errors by the lawyer or his legal
secretary or both are in the following three paragraphs. One's a
spelling error, but two are the wrong word, kinda like "greater" for
"better"]
"Specifically, a recent review of materials disseminated by your
company, via the Internet, revealed that your company is falsely
disparaging iDowload's [sic] product, iSearch...
"As we all know, Malware is a phrase within the public conscience [He
means 'consciousness.' —Ed.] that has a specific meaning. ....
[...]
"To the extent you fail to remedy your improper disparagement of the
iDownload brand on or before February 15, 2005, we will take all
necessary action against your company to protect iDownload from your
continuing tortuous conduct [He means 'tortious' or injurious conduct.
—Ed.]."
I wonder if a pedantic judge would find the briefs (legal, not underwear) of such poorly
educated attorneys unacceptable.
--
Franke: EFL teacher & medical editor
For email, replace numbers with English alphabet.
"The only problem with seeing too much is that
it makes you insane." Phaedrus
Robert Lieblich
>
> From this week's Brian Livingston _Windows Secrets_ newsletter:
> Issue 48 — 2005.02.24
>
> [quote]
> Adware makers threaten critics
>
> One iDownload letter, from attorney Mark D. Hopkins, a partner in the
> Austin, Texas, office of Savrick Schumann Johnson McGarr Kaminsky &
> Shirley, says in part: [The three errors by the lawyer or his legal
> secretary or both are in the following three paragraphs. One's a
> spelling error, but two are the wrong word, kinda like "greater" for
> "better"]
>
> "Specifically, a recent review of materials disseminated by your
> company, via the Internet, revealed that your company is falsely
> disparaging iDowload's [sic] product, iSearch...
>
> "As we all know, Malware is a phrase within the public conscience [He
> means 'consciousness.' —Ed.] that has a specific meaning. ....
>
> [...]
>
> "To the extent you fail to remedy your improper disparagement of the
> iDownload brand on or before February 15, 2005, we will take all
> necessary action against your company to protect iDownload from your
> continuing tortuous conduct [He means 'tortious' or injurious conduct.
> —Ed.]."
>
> I wonder if a pedantic judge would find the briefs (legal, not underwear) of such poorly
> educated attorneys unacceptable.
Time was, Franke, that lawyers dictated to stenos and proofread as
best they could in the time available. Things of the sort you
discuss sneaked through routinely. This guy may be so old he
doesn't type, thereby putting himself at the mercy of a
semi-literate whose only virtue is that she (it's always a she) is
one of the few remaining people on the planet who takes shorthand.
The guy appears to be a Texan, so she may well be taking down what
she hears.
Then again, he may be the victim of a spellchecker. Or he may
simply not know any better.
I agree with you that, no matter the etiology, such diseased writing
ought not clutter the chambers of the nation's judges. But I sorrow
to report that it does, it does. During my several years of
imitating a real judge, I had the occasion to read perhaps three
hundred written briefs. They ranged in quality from true eloquence
to near disaster. But just as a court must try to winkle out the
meaning of even the most confused contract provision, should the
meaning of that provision be in issue, so a judge is forced to read
the briefs, if possible, for what the lawyer meant to say, rather
than for what is actually said. I did allow myself the occasional
snotty footnote or nose-holding "[sic]," but I didn't think it
proper to saddle a client with the loss of an otherwise meritorious
case simply because the poor soul had hired a lawyer who couldn't
tell "conscience" from "consciousness."
Franke-ly, in the US the writing of today's judges, quasi-judges,
pseudo-judges, and imitation judges is no better, on average, than
that of the lawyers who file briefs for their delectation. After
all, a judge is just a lawyer who no longer has any need to
apologize. ("Being a judge means never having to say you're
sorry.") I have a reputation, within the narrow sector of my
profession where I am known, of being a reasonably clear and
effective writer. Given the competition, that's not much of a
compliment.
--
Liebs
CyberCypher
Thank you for the detailed explanation, Bob. It was Brian Livingston who put in the "[sic]"
and the editorial remarks. I do understand the time pressure in law firms. I once worked as a
law clerk and the law librarian for the Getty Oil corporate law office in LA. That was a
quarter of a century ago, though. Good job it was, and better pay than most of the other law
students at Loyola LA. Those were the days when I still wore neckties.
Joe Fineman
> Then again, he may be the victim of a spellchecker. Or he may
> simply not know any better.
I once heard, from someone who claimed to have a degree from Harvard
Law School, some advice in which he continually said "appendage" for
"appendix". I kept to myself my gratitude that it was not the medical
school.
--
--- Joe Fineman jo...@verizon.net
||: Hard cases make bad law. :||