501 Words of Excessive Pontification

Let’s see how it goes.

501 Words

While I was consuming my evening beverage I began to contemplate (as I regularly do) regarding, in particular, the various ways, means and methods by which the legal profession (notably those regarded as counsel, but by no means limited to them) desire to communicate their client’s objectives, their goals, their desires in a way which both captures the essence and passion of the underlying litigant with its nuance, subtlety and idiosyncrasy but also seeks to pronounce such personal matters in ways which comply with, expound upon, and argue in favour of the laws of the land which are sought to be agitated before the Courts which, ultimately, is the arbiter of fact and law and will opine at length regarding the submissions and material put before it in order to arrive at a conclusion that, despite common tendencies towards upset at this basic common truth, will not always contemplate issues of “justice” so much as it will seek to uphold the rule of law, to interpret and analyse the case before it in a way which honours the applicable laws and treats with the submissions most keenly put to it by learned counsel during the course of the hearing or outside it (in the case of written submissions), but also which seeks to assess, weigh and measure the evidence by such a means as to determine merit from none, truth from falsity, and fact from fiction, and in doing so will be able to assist the parties towards a resolution (despite both rarely being satisfied with said resolution), and in contemplating these matters with my evening beverage it occurred to me that in many cases learned practitioners of the law have, for no apparent reason, developed habits that they have some difficulty shedding and which, although habitual, offer little merit towards their client’s case or the learned Judge’s determination of the issues at hand, but ultimately alienate and confuse the aforementioned client whose matter is supposedly the ultimate goal of the communications that we now discuss, but in arriving at such a conclusion I could not help but consider that the ongoing malady of communication amongst the members of the legal professional could be rectified, or at least ameliorated, by a deep and deliberate decision to consciously and viciously avoid the use of such words, sentences, paragraphs and phrasing which comes so readily to those who are not cognizant of it, but which offers little ultimately in the overall scheme of things, and despite the tendency that many have to cling wildly to their tendencies to communicate in such ways, ordinarily such a view comes only from the darker elements of our human nature such as pride, but rarely is it found in those to whom humility is a core principle, who desire to learn and improve on a daily basis, and who accept that their own personal preferences are unlikely to advance matters if they are devoid of merit or offer no actual capacity for advancing the things that matter.

TL;DR

Just say no.

Happy Lawyering!

  • That was ridiculously hard to read, so much so I’m pretty sure I missed the point. It reminds me of the easements done in the 1970’s that are still on title which are a single sentence and you have to decipher and explain to clients (including why they have to allow the neighbour to go return pass and repass with or without horse cart wagon or motor car whether laden or unladen by day or by night through their property).

  • >