Every day legal journalists struggle to translate court jargon and lawyer-speak into plain English to make stories accessible, eliminating words such as “putative,” “scienter,” and “tolling.”
So we asked Bloomberg Law Twitter followers what lawyers need to stop saying in court, briefs, opinions, and more. The responses are pretty brutal.
Off the bat, here’s a general rule for the sake of those who didn’t go to law school.
Without limitation, inter alia. https://t.co/4kIAk04Vfu
— Orlando Da Silva, LSM (@orlando_lsm) February 16, 2021
Any and all legalese—especially in client-facing materials like bios or thought leadership—such as:
— Hilary Engel (@hilary23lynn) February 17, 2021
• hitherto
• henceforth
• notwithstanding
• pursuant to
• pro hac vice
• qui tam
• res ipsa loquitur
Basically, if it’s Latin or sounds like Shakespeare... just don’t.
Here’s William Waite, head of global banking at Eastgate Securities LLC:
“Your invoice is ready.”
— William Elliot Waite (@williamwaite7) February 17, 2021
Our thoughts are with all the court transcribers out there.
Another thing, please don’t think out loud, whether you’re searching for a file, or trying to remember what you wanted to ask, don’t start mumbling about “I know I had it somewhere...” I type what I hear. This is not radio. Dead air is OKAY. No one wants to hear your thoughts.
— PJ Transcription (@TranscriptionPj) February 16, 2021
Let the record reflect. https://t.co/ncU7hLnY6A
— Midwin Charles, Esq. (@MidwinCharles) February 16, 2021
Strike that ! Why ? Because the court reporter takes everything down regardless
— Michael P. Maslanka (@worklawyer) February 17, 2021
Moreover, Kendall Isaac, vice president and general counsel at Dickinson College in Carlisle, Pa., has opinions about lawyer lingo.
Any sentence that begins with a conjunctive adverb. Moreover, it’s so annoying.
— Kendall Isaac (@higheredGC) February 16, 2021
For the sake of clarity, there are interesting comments herein. Whereas, you should read this. Unless, arguendo, you object. https://t.co/f8vTkdWjQH
— Kendall Isaac (@higheredGC) February 16, 2021
Philip Montgomery, an attorney with Legacy Law Group in Hot Springs, Ark., and Amjad Mahmood Khan, a partner at Brown, Neri, Smith & Khan LLP in Los Angeles, laid out every word that should be banished from opinions, briefs, court appearances.
“whereas” “wherefore” “hereinbefore” “Assuming arguendo” “clearly” “regarding” “pursuant to”
— Philip Montgomery (@pmonty336) February 16, 2021
Guilty of all of these, but slowly changing my ways . . .
“frivolous"; “bad faith"; “good faith”, “baseless"; “obfuscate"; “utterly"; “heretofore"; “inapposite” -- we’ve all used these but really don’t need to.
— Amjad Mahmood Khan (@AmjadMKhanEsq) February 16, 2021
And last, but not least, the most common and worst answer you can get from a lawyer.
We need a new term for “it depends.”
— Demetrius Robinson (@biztaxattorney) February 16, 2021
If you don’t follow Bloomberg Law on Twitter yet, you can follow along and join the conversation here.
To contact the reporters on this story: Marissa Horn in Washington at mhorn@bloombergenvironment.com;
To contact the editor responsible for this story:
Learn more about Bloomberg Law or Log In to keep reading:
See Breaking News in Context
Bloomberg Law provides trusted coverage of current events enhanced with legal analysis.
Already a subscriber?
Log in to keep reading or access research tools and resources.