Month: January 2018

Conversing with Lawyers (If They Talked Like They Wrote): A Post-Game Discussion

Ted and John each just finished a long day’s work, Ted with the parks department and John as an economist at a regional bank.  They meet at the local pub and grill. After exchanging fist-bumps, they take their seats at the bar.  “Barkeep,” John said, two fingers in the air.  The bartender knew what that meant.  John and Ted are regulars. They launch into conversation, oblivious to the fact that lurking two stools down is Sterling Augustus Goodfellow III, Attorney at Law.

“Did you see the game last night?” Ted asked enthusiastically.

“That was unbelievable, to throw on fourth-and-goal from the one …” John replied, shaking his head as he brought his beverage up for a quick sip.

Goodfellow, always interested in the conversation of common-folk, couldn’t help himself. “Comes now Sterling A. Goodfellow the third, by and through himself,” he slipped off his seat and started over to them.  “Are you two discussing the football contest held on or about September 8, 2017, between the New England Patriots, a National Football League club, hereinafter [air quotes] ‘N-E-P’ and the Kansas City Chiefs, a National Football League club, hereinafter [air quotes] ‘K-C-C’?”

They both turned their heads towards Goodfellow as he moved to the empty stool next to John. Was this guy serious?

“Yeah,” John responded, careful not to make eye contact.  “The Patriots/Chiefs game last night.”  His tone left no doubt that he was irritated by the invasion of this stranger with his mismatched shirt and tie ensemble.

After panning the area for a hidden camera, Ted simply ignored Goodfellow and turned back to his discussion with John, “One of those teams has a chance to play in the Super Bowl this year,”

“The Patriots, maybe … but the Chiefs, not a chance,” John responded.

Goodfellow wanted in. “I believe that N-E-P and K-C-C both have a decent opportunity to qualify for said game.”

John and Ted looked at each other, then to Goodfellow. “What did you just say?” Ted asked in a slow, measured tone.

Goodfellow could hardly believe the question.  He slowed his speech for the common-folk, “I said that both N-E-P and K-C-C, collectively [air quotes] ‘The Teams,’ have an opportunity to qualify for said game mentioned hereinbefore.”

As he brought up his mug, John shook Ted off with a quick glance—he was not to further engage. Ted got his message, but didn’t care.  He turned to face Goodfellow: “You mean that both the Patriots and Chiefs have a chance to make it to the Super Bowl this year … is that what you’re telling us? Because they can’t both make it, they’re in the same conference.”

“There is not another game mentioned hereinbefore, is there?” Goodfellow responded. “And by [air quotes] ‘The Teams,’ I did not mean to suggest or imply that both of them would qualify for said game at once, but clearly that The Teams both have an opportunity to qualify for said game, meaning one team or the other—in the disjunctive sense, not the conjunctive.  In other words, N-E-P or K-C-C both have a chance to represent the American Football Conference, hereinafter [air quotes] ‘A-F-C,’ against the victor of the National Football Conference, hereinafter [air quotes] ‘N-F-C,’ in the game that is typically held on or about the last week of January or first week of February commonly known as the [air quotes] ‘Super Bowl…Of course, if they won the A-F-C, K-C-C or N-E-P would likely have to play against G-B-P.’”

Ted stared with a blank look on his face.  But John had it figured out, “You some kinda lawyer?”

Editing Your Own Work

It’s after hours. You just finished drafting your brief and you’re feeling pretty good about it.  You’ve read it numerous times, caught a few typos and errors, and cut out some of the fat. But you’ve lived with this thing for too long. You need a fresh pair of eyes on it because we all know that after that many times reading the same thing your brain sees what it expects to see.  And besides, you still need to cut a few paragraphs to comply with the rules. So you wander the halls of your office to find someone to put eyes on this thing. But alas, your colleagues don’t share the same commitment to work (or skill at procrastination) that you do and have long since left for home. Pop quiz, hot shot: What do you do now?

Go back to your office and change the font of your brief to something different than Times New Roman (or whatever you’re using): try Courier or Palatino Linotype.  Then print it out and read it again. Yes, print it. Don’t review on the screen. This is like putting a fresh pair of eyes on the text. It slows down your review, you see things you missed before and end up quickly spotting and cutting the expendable.  Make your revisions, convert back to standard font, good to go.

(Cleaned up) Lands in Utah

How do you reduce word counts, remove extraneous information, and declutter your briefs?  Simple.  Clean up your parentheticals with (cleaned up).

On January 11, 2018, the Utah Court of Appeals issued State v. Cady, 2018 UT App 8, and in the process joined the growing number of courts climbing on-board the (cleaned up) citation movement.  See State v. Cady, 2018 UT App 8, ¶ 10.  At paragraph 10 of its opinion, the court quoted from the Utah Supreme Court’s opinion in State v. Bagnes, 2014 UT 4, ¶ 10, 322 P.3d 719.  The quote in the Bagnes opinion was this:

we may reverse only when “it is apparent that there is not sufficient competent evidence as to each element of the crime charged.” State v. Boyd, 2001 UT 30, ¶ 13, 25 P.3d 985 (internal quotation marks omitted). Our review of the evidence itself is deferential. See State v. Dunn, 850 P.2d 1201, 1212 (Utah 1993). We may reverse a verdict ―only when the evidence, so viewed, is sufficiently inconclusive or inherently improbable such that reasonable minds must have entertained a reasonable doubt that defendant committed the crime for which he or she was convicted.” Id.

So normally, your citation would look something like this: State v. Bagnes, 2014 UT 4, ¶ 10, 322 P.3d 719 (quoting State v. Boyd, 2001 UT 30, ¶ 13, 25 P.3d 985 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting State v. Dunn, 850 P.2d 1201, 1212 (Utah 1993)).

Employing the (cleaned up) citation method, the quotation and accompanying citation in Cady became this:

we may reverse only when it is apparent that there is not sufficient competent evidence as to each element of the crime charged. Our review of the evidence itself is deferential. We may reverse a verdict only when the evidence, so viewed, is sufficiently inconclusive or inherently improbable such that reasonable minds must have entertained a reasonable doubt that [the] defendant committed the crime for which he or she was convicted.

State v. Bagnes, 2014 UT 4, ¶ 10, 322 P.3d 719 (cleaned up)

Continue reading (Cleaned up) Lands in Utah