woo hoo! got the job!

so now I'm a note slave.
not much $, but it'll pay for my morning coffee.

we're reading pennoyer v. neff right now in civ pro...an 1877 land title case involving the court's exercise of jurisdiction.

the only reason they make us read this stuff in the first year is to teach us how not to write.

another fine example of gratuitous rhetoric is Hannan v. Dusch, a 1930 landlord-tenant case. it takes nearly half a page for the court to state that the landlord leased the property without evicting the holdover tenants. there -- a 10 word statement of the case.

so, they are teaching us better writing techniques...'plain language for lawyers' it's called. to which I say, great!

however, there is a drawback in oversimplifying the language. I think this is mostly true when it comes to drafting statutes, which should be drafted to include all the comma this, that, and the other things that are necessary. statutes are enduring and subjected to a lot of scrutiny by the courts in deciding exactly what they mean, so they should take pains to be clear, even if it means more words. whole cases sometimes hinge on (and sometimes arise from) the punctuation of a statute.

but when it comes to pleadings, I think plain direct speech is best. the last thing I want is for a judge to misunderstand my argument, and I don't want to struggle to figure out what the heck the opposing counsel is trying to say.

but please let me use some latin ... just for old times' sake?