I would agree, for the most part. My limited experience is that at least screaming about opposing counsel and how unethical and vile they are is more to intimidate them than to impress the judges.

Is there anyone, anyone whatsoever in the country, who is more persuaded by text in ALL CAPS than normal text? I ask this as a serious question, because if the answer is actually "no", then why in the world do presumably serious local and state political workers, in composing the "Pro", "Con", and various rebuttals for the initiatives in the voter information guides each election season (at least in CA) all use the device at all, let alone to the excess that they do?

(My person criteria for voting on any such issue that I don't have a prior opinion on is to go for the side with the least words Capitalized...)

We are involved in a litigation right now in which the opposing counsel's briefs are replete with bold, caps, unerlines, and all three for the REALLY IMPORTANT POINTS (sorry, I can't do underline in my comment).

The case was transferred from the EDVa, and it is fortunate for this guy. None of the judges in the EDVa would have put up with this guy for very long.

Francophobia in a Texas judge does not surprise me.

In public speaking class I was taught: if you have nothing to say, SAY IT LOUDER.

Did Palin write this brief?

I think the court should also have admonished Davis for defaming Genghis Khan. By the standards of his time his ethics were probably better than average. He actually believed in the rule of law, did not discriminate on racial or ethnic grounds, and tolerated a variety of religions.

Is there anyone here who thinks "blowing smoke up my ass" was a locution in use in the 19th century?

What annoys and astonishes *me* is assertions in a brief, supported by citations to the record ... that absolutely fail to check out.

I don't mean "open to interpretation," I don't mean "the page # was a typo," I mean "not there, period." (Or, as I began to write, NOT THERE.)

We pointed out 8 or 10 instances of this in a recent reply brief, and I just can't imagine what the court will think of opposing counsel. Though I'm afraid they see this kind of thing too often to care.

Steve:

The "legal" reason to repeat a number in parenthesis is to ensure that it is accurately reflected, say in an agreement or legal document. "Smith will pay Jones the sum of Twenty-Five Thousand Six Hundred Forty-Two Dollars and Twenty Cents ($25,642.20)". Same reason you spell out the amount of a check.

But I agree, when it is used for emphasis, it is stupid and unpersuasive.

Not to mention a client:

Martial, Epigrams

6.19 TO POSTUMUS.

My suit has nothing to do with assault, or battery, or poisoning, but is about three goats, which, I complain, have been stolen by my neighbour. This the judge desires to have proved to him; but you, with swelling words and extravagant gestures, dilate on the Battle of Cannae, the Mithridatic war, and the perjuries of the insensate Carthaginians, the Sullae, the Marii, and the Mucii. It is time, Postumus, to say something about my three goats.

Plus ca change...

Let's hear from a guy who got fabulously rich through his writing ability:

"I leave out the parts that people skip."

~ Elmore Leonard

There are, unfortunately, unscrupulous lawyers at every level; unfortunately, most judges and justices have the view that they have other things to do than police these clowns.

I recently finished a protracted bit of child custody litigation with a fairly well-known opposing counsel, involving at least seven or eight court appearances spread out over the better part of a year. My opposing counsel were so prone to simply and flatly mis-stating material facts which were already in the written record before the court, mis-quoting the court's prior rulings, and shading half-truths (until they were more like quarter-truths) that by the last few court appearances, we devoted a separate section in each new document we filed, and I devoted a few minutes in each argument, calling attention to, and correcting, counsel's mis-statements, with citations to the record.

I assume that my opposing counsel was using this sort of tactic because it had previously been successful at least some of the time...

Did we get need-based fees? Yeah. Did we get a substantial amount of sanctions? Nope.

In my experience, fetishistic overuse of underlining, bold font, and/or italics for emphasis seems pretty common, even in workproduct from ostensibly good firms. I routinely see briefs filled to the brim with bolded italics in particular, though I almost never see ALL CAPS. But why not?

If "Dr. Smith unequivocally testified in his deposition that he 'still would have prescribed' the drug even if he had been provided with a more complete warning" is especially persuasive, then "Dr. Smith unequivocally testified in his deposition that he 'STILL WOULD HAVE PRESCRIBED' the drug even if he had been provided with a more complete warning" is even more so!

I'm really not sure what the thought process is, and I'm equally unsure how to go about dissuading my betters from this cherished practice. I've thought about circulating a memo suggesting that we have a paralegal use a gluestick and glitter to highlight super-duper important words in briefs.

Or, perhaps, we could train an army of capuchin monkeys, who would accompany all papers mailed to chambers, to perch on his or her honor's shoulder and clang a dainty pair of cymbals whenever it thinks the judge is nearing a critical word or passage.

Both strike me as ideas with TREMENDOUS POTENTIAL!!

That's because emoticons are totally bogus and no serious person would use them.

On a related note, the insistence of some lawyers on repeating every number twice, even in colloquial sentences - such as "A lie repeated five (5) times becomes the truth" - is truly one of the dumbest things I encounter in practice. Yet I see it every day, even at my own law firm.

I am a Court Appointed Special Advocate in child-abuse cases. My reports have to do numbers this way. Nobody will tell me why. They do let me use traditional grammar, syntax, and punctuation if I yell enough, though, so I figure the number nonsense is a small price to pay. (Oddly, our current director won't allow parentheses. Like these.)

I see that all time in motions, including the use of exclamation points.

Actually response to Motion to Compel I got about 3 months ago. I just pulled it put and am copying word for word, except I am using Counterdefendant and Counterplaintiff in all places where the party is named.

Counterdefendant argues that because he was not named individually as a Defendant, he has had had a full and fair opportunity to depose the Counterplaintiff to investigate the claims made against him individually because the Counterplaintiff was deposed prior to his being named as a party. This is pure hogwash! Counterdefendant is a member of the corporation. As everyone who has actually taken the bar exam surely knows, a corporation can only act through its members. As such, Counterdefendant is attempting to pull a fast one on the court by trying to take a second deposition of Counterplaintiff despite the clear knowledge that HIS CORPORATION'S ATTORNEY ATTENDED THE DEPOSITION AND ASKED OVER 10 PAGES WORTH OF QUESTIONS!!! If a corporation can only act through its members, and Counterdefendant is a member of the corporation, HOW CAN THE COUNTERDEFENDANT POSSIBLY COMPLAIN HE DID NOT GET A FAIR OPPORTUNITY TO DEPOSE COUNTERPLAINTIFF???!!! At a minimum, Counterdefendant's cousel should be sanctioned, and pay all attorney's fees and costs incurred as a result og being forced to respond to this disingenuous Motion.

I would have been fired if I filed that nonsense.

This thread's not over yet, but according to the Iowa Electronic Market, LM is a 3:2 fave to win it.

Writing the number four as "four (4)" is likely to lead you to write "four (5)" in a revision that makes its way into the final document. Then you are screwed. I avoid this repetition for this reason.

(Smokey, I assume the usual split's OK?) ;)