Don`t ask for a kilometre. The American Bar Association has on its website a very important admonition from a judge pro tem of the Orleans Parish District Civil Court. It states: “Ask no more than what has been decided by the court. Resist the urge to include simple words like “with prejudice,” “without prejudice,” or voluntarily include attorneys` and court fees in a judgment. Unless you`ve specifically raised the issue with the judge, don`t assume it`s okay to seek additional relief just because you think it`s important. The court record serves many purposes, including protecting litigants from selfish or last-minute demands. Make a list of all remedies sought by the court and make sure they are recorded in open court. This protects your client, the judge and your reputation. “The officers involved speak almost impenetrable jargon.
They don`t get in their cars; They enter official government vehicles. They don`t go out or leave their car, they go out. They are not going anywhere; You continue. They do not go to a specific place; They approach him. They don`t look or don`t look; She watched. They never see anything; They look at him. No one tells them anything; You will be advised. A man does not tell them his name; He identifies himself. One person says nothing; He suggests. They do not listen to telephone conversations; They are watching him. People talking on the phone don`t say hello; They exchange greetings. An agent does not give money to an informant to make a purchase; It highlights previously registered official government funds.
For an agent, a list of serial numbers does not list serial numbers, but displays Federal Reserve notes. An officer does not say what an exhibit is; He says he pretends to be. Agents precede answers to simple and direct questions from “my acquaintances”. They cannot describe a conversation by saying, “He said” and “I said”; They speak in conclusions. Sometimes it takes the joint efforts of the lawyer and the judge to get them to say who said what. On cross-examination, they do not appear to be able to answer a question directly; Either they spit out conclusions or they don`t understand. This often gives the prosecutor, under the guise of appeal, the opportunity to propose a response, which is then given complacently. In The Discourse of Blogs and Wikis (pp. 99-100), Greg Myers discusses phrases such as “with all due respect” under the heading “stylistic markers of posture,” as well as “I humbly suggest,” “serious,” “honest,” “honest,” “if I can say so,” and smileys.
He ends this section with a quote from Language Log: In 2008, the Oxford dictionary compiled a list of the most irritating sentences in the English language, the sentence with all due respect was considered the fifth most irritating sentence in the English language. Perhaps because of its changing function from a sentence intended to soften harsh feelings to a sentence that allows for a subtle disrespect wrapped in politeness. Tell the opposing lawyer, “You never said/You never did/You`re lying.” Such statements are inappropriate for two reasons. First, lawyers should talk to the court during the reasoning, not the opposing lawyer. Second, this type of accusation is not professional. There is a lack of politeness. Consider the Schedule to the Los Angeles Court Rules, which contains the Los Angeles County Bar Association`s courtesy rules. Courtesy will take you far not only in court, but also in your dealings with opposing lawyers. “If someone prefaces a sentence with the words” with all due respect, it is a sign that it probably triggers something negative or critical, and sometimes quite vulgar and very disrespectful. » Real? The appropriate words to describe such a statement must be determined by evaluating each of these statements separately. Therefore, if the opinion of critics on such a sentence is a generalization that does not refer to a specific use of that expression, then it cannot contain such a judgment; It is an expression of simple prejudice. Justice Rosenthal also emphasized the need for greater precision in requesting or withholding documents.
Judges recognize “gifts” when lawyers don`t have good reasons in discovery disputes and end up having to argue largely frivolous motions during a judge`s constant hearing time, i.e., the “bad boy`s role” in the eyes of some judges. Gone are the days when lawyers could refuse to produce documents on the basis of vague and routine objections of excessive and onerous scope. And those avocados who produce everything, but in an undifferentiated electronic mass, are no better. I came across a few online references to “enforce,” which means “show respect through actions,” and “do diligence,” which means “diligence in actions.” About twenty years ago, I made a film with a British team. One of his favorite phrases was “over the top.” Paul Brian`s list of most common mistakes includes “Respect Respect.” When asked about the importance of a lawyer`s previous appearance before a judge or a lawyer`s reputation, all the judges on the committee agreed that reputation and credibility were crucial. Justice Trenga said judges feel more comfortable when guided by a certain outcome offered by a reputable lawyer. Justice Bellows agreed, stating that any judge with expertise in at least one area of law comes to the bench. But when judges, without exception, are confronted with new areas of law, a lawyer`s reputation “makes all the difference” when explaining how courts typically decide in that area. All judges, Justice Bellows said, are careful not to be overthrown by a higher court. “If you had read my papers… It means, “Judge, you haven`t read my papers. The preposition “if” does not mitigate the blow at all. What you are doing is accusing judges of not doing their job.
The vast majority of bank managers take their jobs seriously. Think of it this way: Why would we want to sit on the bench without reading your arguments? We admit that this has happened many times, and when it has happened, we have felt embarrassed, our ignorance exposed. We prefer to know what it is, and frankly, it`s more fun when we do, because then we can have an intellectual discussion with a lawyer. It`s entirely possible that we`ve misread something or skipped a footnote that includes your strongest case (in which case, why is it in a footnote?) You can suggest that this was done diplomatically. Example: “Your Honour, may I draw your attention to footnote 87 on page 14, in which we quote the case of Putin against Stalin.”) For me, the negative meaning has a connotation of “it`s all the respect you deserve.” Justice Trenga stressed the need for lawyers to recognize “the real fault lines in the case,” as even the most complicated cases are reduced to a set of fundamental facts and legal principles. Focusing on the essential points also means dealing appropriately with the bad facts that will occur in any case. Justice Trenga suggested that one way to do this was to look at the case from the opponent`s perspective and identify all the worst facts. For example, in the event of a legal error, the lawyer may have to verify by both parties whether a lawyer`s unsuccessful handling of a case did not meet the applicable standard of care. Such an analysis would help to move to the next step: refute or neutralize the wrong fact or point it towards an agreement. @Bloix – When a sentence becomes stock, people probably stop paying attention to its logical implications.
I can well imagine someone using “with respect” as cynically as “with all due respect” as “with all due respect,” without letting the listener deduce how much respect is “due.” Many years ago, JB Priestly gave a lecture at my university. In the ensuing discussion, one participant used the phrase “With respect, Mr. Priest.” His answer was introduced by “With great respect, Dr. X” Knockout! It seems to me that the expression “with all due respect” has been so tarnished by satirical usage that it would be better to avoid it altogether. I`m one of those who use “with all due respect” from time to time, but I don`t find it as negative as this article suggests. I usually use it when I want to disagree with someone, but at the same time I recognize that (a) they have every right to have their opinion and (b) their qualifications, reputation, eminence, etc. indicate that they are better informed than I am on the matter. Another phrase I could use in a similar context is “I ask for difference”, which for me carries the first connotation without necessarily carrying the second.