Happy New Year

When Homophones Strike: Twenty-Eight Million Gallons of Sewage into My Anus

I had a hard time believing my eyes when I saw today's Greenwich Time headline.

“With Whom Do I Have the Pleasure of Speaking With?”

If you've recently called AT&T customer service, you may have been greeted by a person asking you, “With whom do I have the pleasure of speaking with?”

This greeting is, of course, redundant. The greeting has a distracting double with. AT&T may as well answer their phones by saying, “AT&T, department of customer service department.”

As Stanley Fish notes in a recent Think Again blog post,

[T]he second “with” [is] superfluous, as the second “to” would be if the offending question had been, “to whom am I speaking to?”, or the second “about” if the question had been “about what are you worrying about?”

It's true! And, as Prof. Fish notes, it's particularly astounding that a massive organization like AT&T would commit this grammatical mistake on every call it takes:

Somehow [my complaint] didn’t make much of an impression on [the customer service representative]. She said that her instructions were to greet callers in that way and that she would continue to do so.

I replied that it was scandalous that a multi-billion-dollar world-wide telecommunication corporation would order its employees to commit an egregious (and comical) grammatical error millions of times a day.

At the Language Log, however, Mark Liberman suggests that AT&T is probably not committing an egregious grammatical error millions of times a day:

I doubt that AT&T actually requires its operators to ask “With whom do I have the pleasure of speaking with?” My guess would be that that some call center may recommend “With whom do I have the pleasure of speaking?”, and an individual employee, puzzled by having to deal with the obsolete morpheme whom — and perhaps affected by the other forces contributing to the redundant-preposition phenomenon — added the extra “with”.

Although I suspect that Prof. Liberman is right, it doesn't make Prof. Fish's post any less entertaining.

And, yes, I do feel sorry for the unfortunate customer service representative who was treated to Prof. Fish's lesson on double prepositions.

Quick Language Tip: Plead? Pled? Pleaded?

To plead is not an irregular verb.

There is a dialectical tendency, though, to conjugate to plead as if it were, by analogy to to read. This yields an alternate past-tense form: plead or pled.

Because legal writing is grounded in Standard English, however, the best past-tense form of to plead is pleaded.

Not plead.

Not pled.

Thus:

The man pleaded guilty to larceny.

Not:

The man plead guilty to larceny.

A New Subtitle for the New Year

When I launched this blog, its subtitle was Thinking and Blogging About Legal Writing.

This subtitle has proved too narrow. While I often blog about legal writing, I occasionally blog about writing generally. I also blog about speaking, which is not quite writing. Finally, while my blog focuses on legal language, it also explores the language of politics.

Accordingly, I have updated this blog's subtitle. Fairyland Castle is is now subtitled A Blog About Legal and Political Language. If you have any thoughts on the change, I'd love to hear from you.

I am also thinking about changing the header. Designs submissions are welcome!

When Elected Officials Misspeak: The British Example

On the twentieth of January, Barack Obama will be sworn in as the forty-fourth president of the United States. Many writers have remarked that this day will mark the end of eight years of presidentially mangled English. I don't need to provide examples, because Slate has documented President Bush's unrelenting war on English. His linguistic disasters are so astounding, they have spawned a new word: Bushism.

In looking back over the past eight years, though, I can't help but conclude that President Bush's abuse of the English language wouldn't have been possible without the acquiescence of the American people.

When he misspoke, the public quietly chuckled. The press rarely pursued President Bush on his inability to speak coherently. Public officials were even more sedate.

We could learn quite a bit from our friends in the United Kingdom. When their leaders misspeak, they are called out on the spot. Just check out Gordon Brown's most recent Prime Minister's Questions of December 10, 2008. In response to David Cameron's usually aggressive questioning, Gordon Brown misspeaks. He says:

We not only saved the world...

When he means to say:

We not only saved the banks...

The House of Commons goes berserk. It's something to behold! I have no doubt that such vigilance forces the prime minster to be mindful of his word choices. Can you imagine if our president were subjected to such treatment every time he butchered the English language? Do you have any doubt that his misstatements would be dramatically fewer?

I don't. And I hope we follow the British example when President Obama says stupid things.

Readers who prefer the entire session of Prime Minister's Questions should check out C-SPAN. (The relevant part is at 5:05.)

The Wall Street Journal's Punctuation Fetish

The latest issue of The New Republic has a great article about The Wall Street Journal editorial page's use of scare quotes. Jonathan Chait picks apart the editorial page's “wildly promiscuous use of quotation marks.” I found his thoughts incisive:

The scare quote is the perfect device for making an insinuation without proving it, or even necessarily making clear what you're insinuating.

A mundane fact--say, Paul Gigot taking a colleague to dinner--translated into Journal editorial-ese would be rendered, “Wall Street Journal editorial page 'editor' Paul Gigot recently patronized a 'legitimate business establishment' with his 'associate.'”

If you don't have subscription to The New Republic—an “investment” I highly “recommend”—you can find Mr. Chait's piece here.

From High Legal Jargon into English

Great legal writers still remember how to speak ordinary English and can translate legalese into ordinary English.

New York Times Supreme Court correspondent Adam Liptak recently wrote an article in which he does just that, translating legalese—“Our consideration is limited to the present circumstance”—into English.

The quote is from Bush v. Gore, and it gives the case an odd nonprecedential quality. The lack of binding precedent in a Supreme Court opinion is a complex concept that naturally lends itself to legalese. Mr. Liptak's description of the concept, however, is not meant for lawyers. Thus, he uses gracefully concise and simple terms to illustrate the concept:

The Supreme Court’s decision in Bush v. Gore, issued eight years ago this month, was widely understood to work like that tape recorder in “Mission: Impossible.” It was meant to produce a president and then self-destruct.

“Our consideration is limited to the present circumstances,” the majority famously said, “for the problem of equal protection in election processes generally presents many complexities.”

That sentence, translated from high legal jargon into English, was often taken to mean this: The decision was a ticket for one ride only. It was not a precedent. It was a ruling, yes, but it was not law.

I love it! This is elegant.

Merry Christmas!

I just wanted to wish you a very merry Christmas! I hope your holiday season is filled with warmth and joy.

A Kennedy Kennedy?

I recently blogged about like, which some attorneys use (thankfully only when speaking) in place of to say.

In yesterday's New York Times comes news that attorneys aren't the only ones who use like in this way. Like is also used by (gasp) aspiring actresses.

In an article discussing young people's ignorance of Caroline Kennedy's lineage comes this jaw-dropper:

“I’m like, ‘Is she a Kennedy Kennedy, or is this one of the cousins?’ ” Ms. Goden, an aspiring actress, asked while taking a cigarette break from her job at the Borders bookstore cafe on West 34th Street.

The article also has this gem:

“I don’t know who her father is, but if you told me, I bet I would know,” said Michelle Kuhns, 21, a senior at St. John’s University in Queens who was working during her holiday break at a bagel shop on Long Island.

That's right: if you told Ms. Kuhns who Ms. Kennedy's father is, Ms. Kuhns bets that she would know who Ms. Kennedy's father is.

After reading this article, I'm all like scared for our future.

Cause for Concern

I can't decide what's more disturbing about the above picture: its desultory hyphens or its stark commentary on the economy.

Hat tip to the Freakonomics blog.

The Only Writing Tip That Really Matters

Evan Schaeffer has a good post entitled, "The Only Writing Tip That Really Matters."

Check it out!

Congressmen, Congresswomen, and Congresspeople

I propose we stop using the terms congressman, congresswoman, and congressperson.

Writers often apply these terms to members of the House of Representatives, but never to members of the Senate. I suspect the reason for this is tact: it might seem vulgar to draw attention to the officials' membership in the lower house.

Any vulgarity, though, is imagined. Moreover, avoiding these terms increases clarity. Congressman, congresswoman, and congressperson are ambiguous, because they refer to both senators and representatives.

For the sake of clarity and intellectual honesty, I propose we refer to members of the House as representatives. This term is more descriptive, and avoids sexist language.

Mr. Garner shares my distaste for congressperson:

Congressperson is an unnecessary substitute for representative, congressional representative, member of Congress, Congressman, or Congresswoman.

Bryan A. Garner, Garner's Modern American Usage 182 (2d ed. 2003).

His preference, though, seems exclusively rooted in a concern over sexism:

As a nonsexist suffix, -person leaves much to be desired. . . . Words ending in -person are at once wooden and pompous. Many words that ended in -man have been successfully transferred without using -person, among them police officer, firefighter, and mail carrier.

Id. at 718-19.

Whether you do it to be more clear or less sexist, use representative when you refer to a member of the House of Representatives.

We Wunt Freedom to Zaidi

This morning's New York Times has a front-page, below-the-fold article about Muntader al-Zaidi, the journalist who recently threw his shoes at President Bush.

My favorite aspect of the article is its accompanying photo.

A man is defiantly waving his shoe. He's also waving the peace sign. At the same time.

Another man listening to an iPod at a political protest.

The real gem, though, is the sign that says We Wunt Freedom to Zaidi. This misspelling is adorable!

I just wunted to share it with my readers.

Bill Gates Is Undermining My Career

When I work with Microsoft Word—which is all day long—I rely heavily on keyboard shortcuts.

One of the shortcuts that I use all the time is alt + s. I'm sure many readers are familiar with this shortcut. It types the section sign, i.e., §.

It's a very useful shortcut for attorneys.

I recently made an upsetting discovery about this shortcut, though.

Microsoft does not use the same keyboard shortcuts across all of its programs. For instance, if you type alt + s in Microsoft Outlook, the program will send the e-mail that you are composing.

Just imagine that you get an e-mail like this:

From: Partner
Date: Sat, Dec 13, 2008 at 6:32 PM
Subject: need statutory cite
To: Associate

Please send me the citation for that statute we were discussing.

You begin eagerly typing your response. When you use alt + s to put in the section sign, however, the e-mail is sent as is. The partner gets this:

From: Associate
Date: Sat, Dec 13, 2008 at 6:37 PM
Subject: need statutory cite
To: Partner

You can find the diversity jurisdiction statute at 28 U.S.C.

It looks as you are saying, "The law is somewhere in title twenty-eight of the United States Code. Have fun searching, loser."

Of course, what you meant to say is:

From: Associate
Date: Sat, Dec 13, 2008 at 6:37 PM
Subject: need statutory cite
To: Partner

You can find the diversity jurisdiction statute at 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

Now you have to send another e-mail with the full citation in it. You also have to decide whether to explain what happened (and look like a weasel) or to just gloss over what happened (and look like a slob).

Safire on Obama's Word Choice

William Safire has a great column on the language of bailouts.

In it, he discusses the Obama team's preference for recovery over stimulus. Mr. Safire also speculates as to why recovery is the new it word:

[C]ool heads on the inside took issue with an alarming verb used by Barack Obama as he introduced his new economic team: “We are going to do what’s required to jolt this economy back into shape.”

I think Mr. Safire is right. Jolt is not the right word to use in this context. It's not reassuring or comforting.

Jolt makes me think of getting defibrillated. Or of getting electrocuted. Or of drinking something that will give me an anxiety attack.

It doesn't make me think of sound economic policy.

Rod Blagojevich v. Tony Soprano

The Daily Beast has a pretty entertaining bit called Who (Allegedly) Said It?

It presents ten quotes. The reader has to identify whether the speaker is the Governor of Illinois or the HBO mob boss.

Warning: the quotes in the above link are *riddled* with curse words.

Ending Sentences with Prepositions

Legal writers often contort their prose to avoid concluding with a preposition. It's acceptable, however, to end sentences with prepositions.

Somebody once scolded Winston Churchill for ending his sentence with a preposition. His response?

That is the type of arrant pedantry up with which I shall not put.

Bryan A. Garner, The Elements of Legal Style 50 (2d ed. 2002).

Judging a Book by its Cover, Part Two

Recently, I blogged about book covers. My point was that, as the market in information becomes ever larger, standing out requires more attention to design.

Recently, I received an e-mail that illustrates my point. The e-mail was promoting a book about alternative billing methods and included an image of the book's cover. The cover looked like this:


This book costs $100. I'm certain the information inside is worth that sum. The cover, though, makes the book look like something that would be given away at a seminar. For free.

It seems that the idea behind the cover of Winning Alternatives to the Billable Hour was to use a clock to illustrate the theme of billable time.

This is a fine idea, but it could have been better executed.

Instead of having text dominate the cover, it might have been a good idea to use the clock as the dominant element.

For example, here's a book cover that uses a watch dial, with a wonderful, eye-pleasing result:


Just replace the The Curious Case of Benjamin Button with Winning Alternatives to the Billable Hour.

Then ask yourself, which cover works better and why?

Mr. Garner Is, Like, Totally onto Something

Yesterday, I received a Garner's Language Tip of the Day that made me nod my head:

California is often falsely and invidiously charged with popularizing "like" as a space-filler: "California's biggest contribution to the American language is the use of the most versatile word ever -- you guessed it, 'like.' Like, a word preceding every, like, noun and, like, verb, is almost the only description needed in a world where adjectives are, like, becoming a dying breed." Mark Egan, "Like, the Language Has Lots of Baggage," Wash. Times, 29 Sept. 1997, at A2. Since the 1980s, "be like" is also a low casualism equivalent to "said" in relating a conversation, especially among juveniles {And I'm like, "Yes, I do." But he's like, "No you don't."}. In teenagers, this usage is all but ubiquitous. In adults, it shows arrested development.

It amazes me how many attorneys use like as a verbal crutch. I hear it, like, every day! And I'm all like please stop saying that.

Things of Beauty

The Book Design Review recently named its Best of 2008. You can check it out here. There are some real stand-outs this year. The covers that made the list are beautiful.

Now more than ever, it's important that books look good. The market in information has gotten so crowded that standing out is quite difficult. This, however, is where books can find their niche: well designed, well manufactured books look much better than any website.

In a recent New York Times op-ed, James Gleick argued that aesthetics must become the new trade of book publishers:

Forget about cost-cutting and the mass market. Don’t aim for instant blockbuster successes. You won’t win on quick distribution, and you won’t win on price. Cyberspace has that covered.

Go back to an old-fashioned idea: that a book, printed in ink on durable paper, acid-free for longevity, is a thing of beauty. Make it as well as you can. People want to cherish it.

Some publishers are following Mr. Gleick's advice: the Design Review Best of 2008 are all things of beauty that people will want to cherish.

Just check out this witty cover for Walter Benjamin's classic essay, The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction.

Interestingly, I didn't see a single law book on the Best of 2008.

I understand why: we're not a stylish profession.

I hope that will change, but my hope is tempered by a healthy measure of reality.

I mean, our industry standard book cover is something like this:

Holiday Gift Ideas

My family recently put its Christmas tree up. I woke up to find the winter's first snowfall on my lawn. Lite FM is playing non-stop Christmas music. The grocery store is carrying eggnog.

It's undeniable: the holiday season is upon us!

In case you're looking for the perfect gift for the lawyer in your life, I thought I would share my recommendations.

I use and love each of the following products.

• Uniball jetstream pens (four for $7.19). These are the best pens ever. A BARBRI instructor turned me onto them. They're amazing. The ink dries immediately and is very smudge-proof, which makes the pen particularly well suited for left-handed writers. When you use a jetstream, whatever you write looks better.
  
• Brooks Brothers shirts (two for $149). A friend turned me onto these shirts. They are amazing. You just wash them at home and they come out of the drier looking terrific. As a result, you no longer need to go the dry cleaner and will save enough money to pay for the shirt in no time. Moreover, I should add that while this shirt is a bit pricey, Consumer Reports concludes that cheaper wrinkle-free shirts work just as well.
• A Dictionary of Modern American Usage ($39.98). This wonderful book should be on every writer's shelf.
• A Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage ($19.97). This wonderful book should be the shelf of every lawyer who wants to write like a writer.
• J. René Espresso ($10.99). Terrific locally roasted espresso. You don't have to live in Connecticut, though, to order it.
• A subscription to the New York Times (price varies). Starting each day with a hard-copy issue of the Times will get your cerebral juices flowing well in advance of your arrival at the office.
  

Note: Although I provide links to the products, the links are only for demonstrative purposes. I do not endorse the above merchants. Also, I do not receive any kick-back for my recommendations.

The Crime of Impersonation

A coworker recently forwarded me a story from the Connecticut Law Tribune. It's about the arrest of Marc Dreier, the founder and managing partner of Dreier LLP. The article would be unremarkable, were it not for its astounding quote from a Toronto Police Service spokesman:

"Basically what they are is that he impersonated himself as someone else and not himself," is how Constable Tonyo Vella, a Toronto Police Service spokesman, describes the charge.

This quote is so bad, it's humorous!

Bleakest E-mail Subject Line, Ever

I just received an e-mail from the ABA Journal Weekly Newsletter with this subject line:

Reed Smith Cuts 126; Paul Weiss Lawyer Murdered; 300 Resumes = Just 1 Interview

Wow. Couldn't the editor have tossed in just one bit of good news?

The Blawg 100: Legal Writing Doesn't Matter

The American Bar Association Journal recently released its December issue, which includes the 2008 Blawg 100. It has some classics:

• Above the Law
• Volokh Conspiracy
• ACSBlog
• SCOTUSBlog

It has some fun blogs:

• That's What She Said
• The Namby Pamby
  

It even has a depressing blog:

• The Temporary Attorney
  

What's missing?

Blogs about legal writing!

Not a single one made the list.

What gives, ABA Journal?

Mid-Sentence Citations

One of my biggest complaints about legal writing is our system of citation. It's quite cumbersome. Legal writing would be much better if all citations—and only citations—went in footnotes.

I realize, though, that this will never come to be. I can accept that.

Mid-sentence citations, however, disturb me.

Here is an example that I recently happened upon:

The doctrine of incorporation by reference, even if applicable at all where an intent to incorporate in the usual sense is negatived (In re Estate of York, 95 N. H. 435, 437, Lauritzen, Can a Revocable Trust be Incorporated by Reference, 45 Ill. L. Rev. 583, 600, Polasky, "Pour-over" Wills and the Statutory Blessing, 98 Trusts & Estates, 949, 954-955; compare Old Colony Trust Co. v. Cleveland, 291 Mass. 380; Bolles v. Toledo Trust Co., 144 Ohio St. 195; Restatement [2]: Trusts, § 54, comments e-j, l, could not import the nonexistent amendment.

Second Bank-State Street Trust Co. v. Pinion, 341 Mass. 366, 368 (1960).

Compound Modifiers on All Things Considered

Yesterday, I was driving home from work and listening to All Things Considered on National Public Radio.

One of the female hosts—I think it was Melissa Block—was interviewing a guest about Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano.

The discussion centered on the possibility of President-Elect Obama picking Governor Napolitano as Homeland Security Secretary.

Then, toward the end of the interview, I heard something that really caught my attention. The host asked:

Are there little known facts about Governor Napolitano?

This question is quite ambiguous! It could mean two different things.

• First, are there any facts about Governor Napolitano that the public is largely ignorant of? E.g., she was a runner-up at the World Scrabble Championship.
  


• Second, is very little known about Governor Napolitano? E.g., it's unclear where she has been living for the past ten years.
  

I think the host intended the first meaning, because the guest responded with trivia: Governor Napolitano is single and has never been married; Governor Napolitano lives in a condo, not the Governor's Mansion; Governor Napolitano was a United States Attorney.

Whether the first or second reading of the question is actually correct, though, depends on whether little known is a compound modifier.

It's unfortunate that radio lacks punctuation, because punctuation could have resolved the ambiguity within the question, Are there little known facts about Governor Napolitano?

That's because compound modifiers should be hyphenated:

Are there little-known facts about Governor Napolitano?

See Bryan A. Garner, The Elements of Legal Style 24 (2d ed. 2002).