While instant messaging users are accustomed to more acronyms than they can probably keep track of, a helpful qualifying phrase for casual law bloggers who are not members of any state bar is "I am not a lawyer", or "IANAL".
It allows the writer to demostrate that, while he may not be qualified to appear as the counsel of record in most courts, he is likely more qualified to make common sense of some legal issue or development -- a characteristic sorely lacking among many legislators.
Posted by admin on November 25, 2003 03:57 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBackWhile you can probably get a away with some Latin, the excessive use of this old tounge is bound to turn off most non-lawyer and lawyer readers alike.
Take the time to decipher Latin phrases for your readers.
Here are some that seem to be understood by non-lawyers: quid pro quo, uhh... et cetera . . . what are some others?
Posted by Andrew Zangrilli on November 25, 2003 02:49 PM | Comments (5) | TrackBackThere's nothing wrong with using legal language in a legal blog. Legal Terms like verdict, conviction, attorney, litigation, liability, plaintiff, defendant, perjury, legislation, and infringement are all words that reside in the collective usage.
Once you move beyond the usual legal language, you run the risk of alienating a lot of people. Of course, the use of overly-complicated legal terms ("Legal Jargon") may be unavoidable when discussing a highly complex areas of law. The use of Jargon really depends on the kind of audience you want for your blog.
Posted by Andrew Zangrilli on November 25, 2003 02:47 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBackIf someone were to come up with a Manual of Style for general blogs, the section on Word Choice would probably be quite short: "Say whatever's on your mind, Fitzgerald."
However, we (I) propose that Legal Blogs should be held to higher standards, especially when it comes to choosing the appropriate syntax. After all, we're supposed to be wordsmiths. If people come to regard Legal Blogs as beacons of clarity in the murky world of Laws and Justice, word choice is a very real issue.
At a very basic level, superfluous cuss words should be edited from your posts prior to posting -- unless they are an integral part of your soliloquy or quoted directly from a defendant in a criminal proceeding.
Most likely, if you operate a legal blog, you are a highly educated person. Your words should not belie your hard-earned investment. If you want to talk trash, get a side blog and adopt a cool street moniker.
Posted by Andrew Zangrilli on November 25, 2003 02:21 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBackWhat are your thoughts on de-publishing?
De-publishing is removing posts from your site after they've been proven wrong, foolish or defamatory.
My $.02: I think de-publishing is acceptable when it's done for liability purposes. It's also ok if you've flamed someone and want to make amends. This medium is fleeting - eventually all of it will be de-published. There's nothing wrong with keeping your site tidy.
BUT... if you take a firm stand on some legal issue (say, a pending issue before the Supreme Court), and it turns out that you're on the losing end of the battle, you should not de-publish simply to save face.
Journalists don't get to take back their articles. Stand behind your words! This is a suitable segue into the next lesson on "Choosing Your Words Carefully."
Posted by Andrew Zangrilli on November 25, 2003 02:12 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack