Legal writing pet peeves

July 15, 2011
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

In the July 6 Indiana Lawyer, reporter Jenny Montgomery talks to several attorneys about issues they have with legal writing. One attorney is bothered by the phrase “Enclosed please find … .” Another is bothered when she reads “thirty (30) days” in litigation documents.

We want to know:  What are your pet peeves when it comes to legal writing?  
 

ADVERTISEMENT
  • Peeve
    My pet peeve is the overuse of the word "Pursant," especially in non-legal documents, letters, memos, and casual emails.
  • Legal writing pet peeves
    The following drives me up the wall:

    "attached hereto, and made a part hereof. . . "
  • Progress
    When I first started in the practice lawyers were using "Now comes the [plaintiff] or [defendant]" in each paper that was filed with the court. I had never heard that phrase in law school so I assumed it was a requirment of some obscure rule of our learned profession. I've not seen that phrase in several years so we have made some progress. "Clearly" ought to be banned from briefs. If anything was "clear" about a case there would be no sense in writing a brief about it. Isn't that clearly the case?

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
  1. Being dedicated to a genre keeps it alive until the masses catch up to the "trend." Kent and Bill are keepin' it LIVE!! Thank you gentlemen..you know your JAZZ.

  2. Hemp has very little THC which is needed to kill cancer cells! Growing cannabis plants for THC inside a hemp field will not work...where is the fear? From not really knowing about Cannabis and Hemp or just not listening to the people teaching you through testimonies and packets of info over the last few years! Wake up Hoosier law makers!

  3. If our State Government would sue for their rights to grow HEMP like Kentucky did we would not have these issues. AND for your INFORMATION many medical items are also made from HEMP. FOOD, FUEL,FIBER,TEXTILES and MEDICINE are all uses for this plant. South Bend was built on Hemp. Our states antiquated fear of cannabis is embarrassing on the world stage. We really need to lead the way rather than follow. Some day.. we will have freedom in Indiana. And I for one will continue to educate the good folks of this state to the beauty and wonder of this magnificent plant.

  4. Put aside all the marijuana concerns, we are talking about food and fiber uses here. The federal impediments to hemp cultivation are totally ridiculous. Preposterous. Biggest hemp cultivators are China and Europe. We get most of ours from Canada. Hemp is as versatile as any crop ever including corn and soy. It's good the governor laid the way for this, regrettable the buffoons in DC stand in the way. A statutory relic of the failed "war on drugs"

  5. Cannabis is GOOD for our PEOPLE and GOOD for our STATE... 78% would like to see legal access to the product line for better Hoosier Heath. There is a 25% drop in PAIN KILLER Overdoses in states where CANNABIS is legal.

ADVERTISEMENT