Tony Mauro at Legal Times alerted people last week to this exchange at oral argument:
MS. SAHARSKY [of the Solicitor General's office]: What I'm suggesting, Your Honor, is that the "that" refers to everything that is in Romanette (i) and (ii) up to the break with "committed by." So that it is an offense that is a misdemeanor and has as an element "committed by." You know, these — these two different clauses both modify "offense," just as a grammatical matter, not looking at this Romanette (i) and (ii), but just looking at that sentence.CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Romanette?
MS. SAHARSKY: Oh, little Roman numeral.
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: I've never heard that before. That's — Romanette.
A lawyer teaching a Justice a new word at oral argument is rare, partly because the Justices know pretty much all the words they need to know, and partly because no lawyer wants to either confuse a Justice or be seen as showing off. So I suspect that Ms. Saharsky used the word entirely without thinking about it: To her, it was quite normal, though to the Chief Justice it was unknown (as it was to me and to some other lawyers I've talked to).
So what's going on? The word is in no dictionary that I could find. It appears in no Nexis-searchable publication. A Google search for "Romanette" in English-language pages revealed fewer than 35 pages that used the word before Monday, once all the false positives (the names of people, horses, green bean varieties, blinds, and the like) were removed.
And yet the word, with precisely the meaning Ms. Saharasky used, appears in six court opinions, from federal court in Oklahoma, bankruptcy courts in Texas and Pennsylvania, and state courts in Minnesota, plus ten sources in Westlaw's TP-ALL database (all in practitioner journals, not in traditional law reviews). And the Google hits — mostly from legal documents — come from a similarly wide range of sources: the minutes of a Novato, California City Council meeting, a manual of contract drafting, a transcript of an Idaho Senate commitee meeting, and more. What's more, all but a few use the word as matter-of-factly as Ms. Saharasky did, without any indication that the word is anything novel and unusual; the remaining ones are queries about what the word means or brief discussions of its meaning.
The earliest source I could find is this 1993 book on Corporate Internal Investigations; apparently the word seemed commonplace to the author even then. Most of the sources are from the last five years, but some go back to the 1990s. And I suspect that the word's ratio of spoken/written uses is probably much higher than for many other words, because it's a way of verbalizing written symbols. In writing, we can just say "subsection (ii)," but when we pronounce it, we need something more than that, and for some people "Romanette" is that something more. This suggests that the term might be more common than my Google search suggests.
Still, what strikes me about the term is that many of its users seem to assume that it's widely known, even though many other experienced lawyers — pretty much all of the handful of lawyers that I've run this by — have never heard of it. One can expect this for some terms widely known by lawyers but not by laypeople (such as "conclusory"); many users of such terms might think the whole world knows the term because so many of their friends are lawyers.
But how would a term such as "Romanette" become so commonplace in some widely dispersed legal circles, to the point that its users assume that it's widely known, but so unknown to others within the same profession? Did it arise at some particular law school, or in some law firm, or among users of some particular drafting manuals, and thus seem common to people who have been exposed to it but unknown to others? Or am I mistaken in my conjecture, and the users of the word like it so much — or think it's so good for showing off — that they use it even though they know many listeners don't understand it?
If you have some answers to these questions, I'd love to hear them in the comments.
Who wants to bet Andrew Napolitano uses it first on Fox News?
Use of "romanette" seems to connote seniority. While intuitively understood by most uninitiated listeners, the word does seem to convey the understanding that the speaker is an insider, someone who employs a fairly esoteric word knowing that the listener may or may not be aware of its meaning.
I use "little i." Been practicing 30+ years, and this case is the first time I've heard the word "romanette,"
It could also be a Dept of Justice fad. In my day, no DoJ staffer could write a brief without using the word "quintessential." I doubt there was a requirement in their Departmental Manual, but they just loved the word. Today that seems to have passed.
(Local fad: when you want to show something to the jury, you formerly just asked permission to "show it to the jury." Present fad is to ask to "publish it to the jury."
We also decided we are going to use to word as much as possible and ridicule all those who are not in the know.
This is an example of a general phenomena for people who do (i) specialized work (ii) where the vast bulk of that specialized work is done by themselves. Most of the people who use it saw it used at some point, looked it up, and internalized the definition for many years (thinking about its meaning whenever they saw the Romanettes used, but never speaking it out loud). Over many years it becomes a natural part of that person's vocabulary with hardly ever using it in speech.
It's a kind of internal vocabulary. Someone I talked to once referred to this as a "Tower of Babel effect," and I think that is a good description of it.
Isn't all language-acquisition like this? When we were young, our parents pointed to a banana and said, "This is a banana." And we just started calling it a banana. We didn't say, "What a curious word -- i was simply calling it a Soft Yellow Wand." We just accepted it.
Same with romanette.
But I think it's a great word.
I think I'll go with "soft yellow wand" from now on. ;)
I image that thousands, if not tens of thousands, of lawyers have seen that BarBri lecture.
We also refer to "nits" that we find in documents. I practiced law for a number of years before I realized that a nit is a tiny egg left on the scalp my lice. Hence the term nitpicking.
The first time I heard it was 1998 or so, while negotiating a lengthy document over the phone. I was 20 years out of law school and had never encountered the term before, but the meaning was readily apparent from the context, especially with the document open in front of me.
It is commonly used by transactional lawyers (myself included). Evidently less so by others.
I do technical work, and that results in a lot of jargon that's often rather limited in spread. On the subject of hackers, the average Joe might only think of bad people who make nasty computer programs, while a more tech-savvy individual might know the distinction between white cap and black cap hackers, and an even more limited group would understand the relatively jargon "samurai" term. The unit "sagan" (billions and billions) is only really well-known by 30+ year-olds, while it's more of an eclectic one for the younger generations. Hackers and network administrators usually know what a "Chernobyl packet" exploits and does, but your average really good programmer probably doesn't know or care. "Berkeley Assured Software" is a bit easier to guess at, but if you don't know much about bad Berkeley code, it doesn't really make much sense. I'd never heard the color "CISCO green" in the south, but the northeast and midwest do like the term.
Romanette, like the above slang, works rather well. It logically follows from pre-existing words or common cultural knowledge, can be 'puzzled out' rather easily, and is shorter or more elegant than a more complete definition of the term. Generally they won't spread like wildfire, even if they are extremely useful (as opposed to modern memes), but they do tend to have a lot more lasting power.
As "Houston Lawyer" points out, "nits" is also commonly used among transactional lawyers. I'm not sure I'd ever heard it used before I started practicing.
And then there's the annoying and faddish businesspeak that always seems to invade transactional practice: "leverage" was big for a while; "granular" and my all-time personal favorite "opening the kimono."
My favorite is everyone wanting to "bottom that issue out".
Romans, Romanettes, Countryman, lend me your ears;My least favorite expression (and I don't think I'm at all prudish) is when negotiations are getting close to being done, people say that they're "getting down to the short strokes."
I suppose it's possible they're talking about painting artwork, but I doubt it.
My favorite editing comment is "stet", which is short for "nevermind that I just scratched out that whole paragraph and re-wrote it in the margins, just leave it alone".
We have a lawyer in our firm that is constantly using those types of colloquialisms that, AFAIK, are unique to the law firm environment. Some of my favorites include "get our arms around the issue," "if past is prologue," and "beavering away."
By the way, count me as another lawyer who has used the term "romanette" since I began practicing a number of years ago without giving it a second thought. It doesn't surprise me that it's not commonly used. It's really only worth using that colloquialism if you're constantly discussing drafting minutia in documents where romanettes tend to be used (such as contracts).
Great word though. Better than "little-i" by far.
Yes. Definately not "numerale Romanissimo due". FWIW - if there are "big romans" they're the section numbers, rather than subsections, using Word's outlining scheme.
I always thought "getting down to the short strokes" was a swimming term (you use shorter strokes near the end of the race). Either that or an analog to "dotting the i's and crossing the t's" since both of those acts are rather short strokes of a pen.
In litigation, I was always amused by such terms as "whose ox does that gore?" and "you can't unring a bell" and "that's just letting the camel's nose under the tent" (or variations thereof).
As for "Romanette," mark me down as the first commenter to think it's a tad too cute.
For example, romanettes are quite common in a lot Anglo-Saxon manuscripts, such as the Lacnunga. This is one of the more disorienting aspects of reading these works when one is fairly new to the language, for example:
sloh ða þa næddran, þæt heo on viiii tofleah.
If you aren't terribly familiar with the language, you may think that viiii and tofleah rhyme, but really, its a romanette.
Thanks, once again.
Frat Stud is on Volokh now? Jesus, I better stock up on Spam and shotgun shells.
And I forgot who asked, but the reason you wouldn't just say "subsection 1" is because the sections are frequently enumerated with both standard and Roman numerals. "Article 42.12(a)(2)(i)" and so on. So that would be section a, subsection two, romanette one. I love it. :)
You are totally right - that's huge here (especially in leveraged finance, for some reason).
Also, do you find that people use the word "fulsome" to mean "complete" (while it actually connotes an unpleasant excess).
Incidentally, I worked as a proofreader at Dewey Ballantine in the early 70s, when I was in high school, and I don't think the term "romanette" was used back then, though the term "in the hole" (for numbers in parentheses) was used. So the term "romanette" probably arose after that date. I don't remember when I first heard it, though.
I've been a litigator for 18 years in the Midwest and never heard the term "Romanette." Personally, I would say "small Roman numberal one," "small Roman numeral two," etc.
How exactly was the Chief Justice "schooled"? As this discussion makes clear, the litigators (including myself) are unfamiliar with the term while you transactional types evidently orgasm over it. From what I understand of the Chief's background, he was a litigator before he was a judge--and he heard a term litigators normally do not use or know.
Corporate partners at Cravath (where I started) rolled their eyes and considered it a silly affectation.
And to join the ranks, I'm a junior transactional associate who assumed it was common parlance. We use it all the time.
Subsection one can be written 1, i, I, all of them with or without parentheses or periods. And when you get into subsections of subsections ad infinitum and ad nauseam, a simple "subsection one" does not give you enough information.
I don't usually say Romanette, prefering "small Roman one" or "little eye," and, if they are parenthesised, adding "in the hole". Nor do I ask my server to drag my burger through the garden, even when I want lettuce and tomato with it.
Well, there is another meaning to that "short strokes" phrase. You might want to avoid it.
My favorite expression recently is "kicking it down the can," per Rahm Emanuel. I hope that catches on. My previous favorite was "It's not rocket surgery."
re: thread topic--I had never heard "romanette," but I will start using it forthwith in collective bargaining negotiations. (I have only a few year's experience at the table so maybe I'm just ignorant, but none of the atty's on the other side have used it either, in my hearing at least. We've all been referring to "little eyes.")
As a litigator, I would just say "Article forty-two point twelve A two, subsection one."
Subsection is just used for the lowest level you intend to go in a particular context. If you use "subsection" too early, just start using "sub-subsection."
I've never heard "romanette" in SoCal litigation practice. In fact, I think people would look at me like I was wearing a pink feather boa if I ever used that term in court.
I have always referred to these numerals as "in the hole,"
Please, please, please don't do that in front of the SCOTUS.
You might as well refer to "i" as "I with a hat on top," except that doesn't sound dirty like "in the hole."
"In the hole" is a new one for me - I never had to pull printer's office proofing duty though.
PUDGY: Evenin', ma'am. Would you excuse us? We jus' gettin' down to the short strokes.
MRs. WOODRUFF: Oh, of course. Short strokes? Is that golf? Or rowing? Or worse?
VERY common to use that term if you do tax.
It is definitely a term used when drafting, marking up or negotiating a document in collaboration with others - but there's no real reason to write it down. I guess this separates the working lawyers from the academics.
2. "Event of default" means any of the following:
(a) in the case of the Tenant,
Hmm. This is a bit gratuitous. He's surely not ignorant, and his desire to learn this bit of legal slang evident from the transcript shows him to be curious. I think the statement that Judge Roberts' judicial philosophy is formalistic, predictable almost entirely coideologically with the party of the president that appointed him and intellectually uninteresting might be defensible, but there's no need to basely insult the man.
I can turn that one back to golf, too. Arnold Palmer's Golf Book, 1961:
"In low-scoring, high-money tournaments, your drive becomes the money shot."
:)
I suspect that it may be a bit more subtle than simply transactional practice. It may be transactional practice combined with dictation. This explains why dictationaries don't have it, as it would be a confined technical useage that wouldn't have emerged until dictation became common -- a really old word would be in the OED.
Almost all of the lawyers older than me spent some of their practice, particularly if they practiced at medium or larger firms, dictating, although many similar in age have since abandoned the practice.
Few lawyers younger than me have done much dictation, although some firms abandoned the practice later than others.
I also suspect that it may be a regional useage, confined to the Northeast coastal states and perhaps also San Francisco, but probably not as far South as Washington D.C. I suspect that it coincides rather closely with use of the three piece suit.
section number (202)
Subsection(b)
paragraph (1)
subparagraph (A)
clause (i)
Subclause I
At least that's the way I was taught on Capitol Hill.
That may be the origin, but I've never dictated anything.
It's common in D.C. and non-coastal Philly in my experience. Silicon Valley, too.
Interesting that previous commenter Richard Campbell first heard "Romanette" in Chemerinsky's BARBRI lecture - When I attended Chemerinsky's BARBRI lecture this summer, I was really confused because he kept saying "little one" and "little two" instead of "Romanette one" or "Romanette two."
I kept thinking he was using some diminutive cutesy term (aided by his hilarious intonation), not referring to a bullet point from memory.
Maybe Chemerinsky stopped using "Romanette" because people kept asking him what it meant?
I suppose there's some inference you can draw there about lawyers preferring a baroque approach, and technologists preferring an orthogonal system that can be extended indefinitely (section 1.3.2.4.2.7.23, anyone?), but that would just be trolling, wouldn't it?
"Thales, I believe David's comment was designed to be a restatement of a common criticism of Sarah Palin."
And I believe he (mis)took it in that spirit. At least, for his own sake, I hope he did...
I picked it up in my first six months as an ERISA attorney, where one of my usual jobs was to suggest revisions to benefit plan documents and discuss them with supervising attorneys. The senior attorneys said they learned it on the job.
"Sucks" is now in widespread usage; I suspect it would be used far less if people reflected on what it refers to.
As in, "It sucks like an Electrolux."
Hmmm. Nope, can't find a golf origin for that one. :)
(1) "Two bites of the apple" (Remember, only one free bite in most states)
(2) "Take the laboring oar" (You do all the work, I put my name on the caption)
(3) "Snatch defeat from the jaws of victory" (Oh so witty!)
(4) "Fishing expedition" (Why not a trip instead?)
Does the fish know it is wet?
I bet you fellows use words like "limit" in some rather idiosyncratic ways.
And I believe he (mis)took it in that spirit. At least, for his own sake, I hope he did..."
I did indeed mistake your meaning, though I would generally agree with that common criticism of Sarah Palin, on what I consider a fair evaluation of her public statements and record. I do hold a much higher opinion of Chief Justice Roberts.
As for "opening the kimono", I have always liked that phrase. It usually occurs at some point in the transaction where the parties agree to stop holding back their most confidential information. I have always assumed that it alluded to the idea that when a Samuri opens his kimono, the other person can see whether he has any weapons hidden underneath. A review of the Shogun mini-series might provide further insight.
"it is what is" is what it is.