Bryan A. Garner

In recent weeks, several readers have taken issue with the idea that a man with “Jr.” appended to his name should drop it within two years of his father’s death. In our LawProse Lesson of May 2013, we cited six authorities published from 1937 to 2003 insisting that the “Jr.” be dropped upon the father’s death. …

LawProse Lesson #224: Rethinking the dropping of “Jr.” Read More »

Every once in a while, an American will tell me that The Economist makes for wretched reading because of its many misspellings. I fear that they’re betraying both provincialism and sloth in reading. Like all other British publications, The Economist uses British English spellings. Hence BrE –our (favour) to AmE –or (favor), BrE –re (centre) to AmE …

LawProse Lesson #223: The Economist’s “Misspellings” Read More »

What is a misnomer? In law, a misnomer is the use of a wrong or inappropriate name—usually of a person or place—in a legal document. In nonlegal contexts, misnomer usually refers to a misdescription of a thing or concept.      You’ll occasionally find this term misused to mean “a popular misconception” {It’s time to banish the …

LawProse Lesson #222: What is a “misnomer”? Read More »

The fallacy of intelligibility. Several readers wrote about last week’s lesson to say that it matters not one whit whether you “cite a case” or “cite to a case.” They said: “Everybody knows what it means.” That’s an interesting line of argument. You’ll encounter it often in usage circles, but not among those who prize …

LawProse Lesson #221: The fallacy of intelligibility. Read More »

Is the verb “cite” transitive or intransitive? For most of its history, the verb cite (dating from the 15th century) has been a transitive verb; that is, it takes a direct object. For example, a lawyer cites a case or a police officer cites a driver for a traffic violation.       I could cite …

LawProse Lesson #220: Is the verb “cite” transitive or intransitive? Read More »

Are “certworthy” and “enbancworthy” bona fide words? Yes. According to the 10th edition of Black’s Law Dictionary, certworthy dates from 1965 and means “(of a case or issue) deserving of review by writ of certiorari.” It was first recorded in the 7th edition of Black’s in 1999.       Enbancworthy is recorded from 1968 and is defined as …

LawProse Lesson #219: Are “certworthy” and “enbancworthy” bona fide words? Read More »

How much argle-bargle is required for jiggery-pokery? In the last few Supreme Court terms, Justice Antonin Scalia has used some memorable British colloquialisms—especially argle-bargle and jiggery-pokery. Argle-bargle is a chiefly British phrase that has taken on the meaning “copious but meaningless talk or writing; nonsense.” It originated in the early 19th century from the Scottish term argle—a …

LawProse Lesson #218: How much argle-bargle is required for jiggery-pokery? Read More »

When do you capitalize federal and state? What about congressional and constitutional?      These words have been worked hard over the past week. Maybe they’ve earned capitals on that basis alone. But let’s see what the best typographic practice calls for—keeping in mind that professional editors today overwhelmingly prefer “down-style,” in which capitalization is sparingly used. …

LawProse Lesson #217: When do you capitalize “federal” and state”? Read More »

Embrace constructive criticism.      Undeveloped writers feel instinctively that if someone else criticizes their writing, it’s a personal affront. But more experienced writers know that if you insulate yourself from criticism, you’ll find it difficult to improve. Every document can benefit from a review by a fresh pair of eyes—as many as possible, in …

LawProse Lesson #216: Embracing constructive criticism. Read More »

How do you decide which Latin phrases to italicize and which ones to keep in roman type? The answer depends on how thoroughly naturalized the word, abbreviation, or phrase has become in English. If the term has become so commonplace in English that it is said to be “anglicized,” it stays in roman type; if …

LawProse Lesson #215: How do you decide which Latin phrases to italicize? Read More »

Lawyers’ biggest failing as writers. What’s the most pervasive flaw among legal writers? It’s the tendency to begin writing before fully understanding the message to be conveyed. Lawyers often don’t think through what they want to say until they’re already writing—and they therefore meander, backtrack, and even restart. Unless they spend a great deal of …

LawProse Lesson #214: Lawyers’ biggest failing as writers. Read More »

Caselaw: one word or two? Two-syllable noun phrases often begin as separates, then become hyphenated, and then become solidified. Take, for example, the word today. It started as two words {to day}. In the 19th century it was commonly hyphenated {to-day}. The Century Dictionary (1895) listed to-day as the preferred form with today as a variant. In 1934 the …

LawProse Lesson #213: Caselaw: one word or two? Read More »

Does a snarky tone win in motion practice? Among the most common remarks that judges make about advocacy is how extremely distasteful they find digs, jabs, put-downs, and negative characterization of opposing counsel and opposing clients. Yet litigators everywhere seem to adopt these tactics more than ever. So what’s the best approach, and why? Should …

LawProse Lesson #212: Be the voice of reason. Read More »

Nouns of multitude.      Last week, we discussed the distinction between collective nouns and mass nouns and how you treat each in terms of numerical agreement. This week, we’ll address the related concept of nouns of multitude {a number of} {a bunch of} {a lot of}. These constructions typically place a collective noun after …

LawProse Lesson #211: Nouns of multitude. Read More »

Collective vs. Mass Nouns.      In last week’s lesson on and/or, one of the examples used this sentence: The team of lawyers, paralegals, and mediators resolved the case quickly for their clients. One reader wrote and asked why the correct wording isn’t “its clients” instead of “their clients.” It’s an arguable point—but one with a preponderance …

LawProse Lesson #210: Collective vs. Mass Nouns Read More »

Ban and/or. And/or dates from the mid-19th century. Although lawyers and courts have vilified and/or for most of its life, this bit of legalese continues to infest legal writing and create ambiguity. The literal sense of and/or is “both or either,” so that A and/or B means (1) “A,” (2) “B,” or (3) “both A and B.” Since and/or has a …

LawProse Lesson #209: Ban “and/or” Read More »

Graduate, vb.      Last week, at a performance of The Originalist in Washington, D.C., the stage actor Ed Gero—in a superb portrayal of Justice Antonin Scalia—delivered the small gaffe of having the Justice say “she graduated Harvard College.” After receiving a friendly suggestion later that evening, Mr. Gero assured me that in future performances, …

LawProse Lesson #208: “Graduate,” vb. Read More »

Three ways to improve a statement of facts. First, let it progress naturally from beginning to end—almost invariably in chronological order. Just tell the judge your story of the relevant events that gave rise to this legal dispute. Presenting the facts in order gives the judge a more coherent picture of the case. Second, remove …

LawProse Lesson #207: Three ways to improve a statement of facts. Read More »