Do you have a good vocabulary? Prove it, smarty.

Test your knowledge against the vocab champ, Judge Selya of the First Circuit.

The following word list was gathered from his recent decisions. How many can you define?

Algid
Decurtate
Dehors
Exigible
Encincture
Asseverational
Chiaroscuro
Solatium
Isthmian
Anent
Sockdolager
Nonce
Purlieu
Gallimaufry
Perscrutation
Longiloquent
Integument
Asthenic

Scoring
0-2: dunce
3-5: average
6-11: whiz kid
12-18: 2 smart

Joi Ito made a post a few days ago about writing style and named his favorite resource, The Chicago Manual of Style. He also lists some web resources, and remarks that "[p]oor writing style, like bad manners, makes someone appear less intelligent than they are."

I own a copy of Strunk and White (3^rd edition), and I am sure it is apparent that I seldom consult it. For usage, I adhere to Fowler's Modern English Usage, both for the substantive content and Fowler's overall crankiness. According to reader reviews at Amazon, R. W. Burchfield's edition has disappointed many who were accustomed to the Fowler treatment.

For a more recent tome on the topic of usage, the 2^nd edition of Hayakawa's Choose the Right Word comes highly recommended by several individuals.

A short editorial battle ensued the other day. I corrected a couple of typos in my esteemed colleague's article, including one elective typo: the first letter "e" in the word judg(e)ment. It had been included, and I endeavored to omit it. A few hours later, it had returned. Again, I removed it, only to repeat the measure once more.

My preference has always been to omit the initial "e" for one simple reason: my 1L Civil Procedure professor told the class that "there is no 'e' in the word judgment - wait, I mean there is only one 'e'".

Maybe he would have been willing to spell it "judgmnt", but I took his statement to be an old-guard viewpoint. Ever since, I have always made a point to refrain from inserting the first "e".

I then set out to write this entry, and in doing so consulted my favorite authority: Fowler. Much to my surprise, it was not the double-"e" variety which was the cultural upstart, but rather "judgment".

From Fowler's Modern English Usage:

Modern usage, however, favors judgment; judgement is the form sanctioned in the Revised Version of the Bible, & the OED prefers the older & more reasonable spelling. (emphasis added)

It has long been my preference to preserve the antiquated spellings of words, but only so long as the battle is still being waged in my lifetime. The battles for "theatre" and "shoppe" were lost long before my day. These spellings now serve to apply a quaint touch when invoked by modern scribes.

While the emergence of "judgment" certainly predates my existence, its supplantation of "judgement" is far from complete. Further, if Fowler and the OED endorse "judgement," then that is the spelling that shall henceforth carry the day - for me, at least.

However, perhaps this opinion is elitist rather than preservationist. The Simplified Spelling Society takes the following view:

Over the centuries the pronunciation of English has moved farther away from the spelling. Many languages have reformed their spelling to adjust to such changes, but English has not. Traditional English spelling therefore makes the task for learners more difficult and results in a lower level of literacy.

It appears that the silent "e" is nothing more than a thief in the night that robs our nation of literacy. Perhaps the need for lawyers may some day become obviated by such a widespread phenomenon as literacy.

A noble cause indeed, this literacy. But as long as there are lawyers and legislators writing the laws and interpreting their meanings, that day will not likely come. Lawyers are perhaps in the best position to make themselves indispensable by performing their responsibilities convolutedly - the opposite of planned obsolescence.

A friend of D. Maizenberg’s once told him that you do not need to be a doctor or a lawyer, but you need to know how to talk to them. Those two professions, medicine and law, hold the keys to what we value most: life and liberty. This advice has since been modified into the following axiom: You need to know how to talk to “the man,” and you need to know how to talk to the “medicine man.”

Whether you need to know how to spell like a doctor or an attorney remains to be seen.

Internet content is largely considered ephemeral, or at least disposable. No matter the force of words: it is the medium that largely preserves the value of the content - should there be any value.

Even the most apropos arrangement of zeros and ones will be hard-pressed to stand the test of time as well as print media such as the first edition of The Catcher in the Rye.

Which is ironic, considering that the last time there was a "next big thing" in print media was circa 1450. But with the internet, "next big things" abound. Wireless, mobility, blogging, community. So far, only the internet itself has stood the test of time (a whopping 30 years or so).

The important thing is not to let the medium drive the content. It may be difficult to "blog for the ages," but one should nevertheless strive to maintain some degree of perspective and thoroughness. For a dose of reactionary banter, listen to AM talk radio.

Not all content is evergreen, and often the subject matter dates itself (try blogging about "push technology" or "lotus notes"). Blogging therefore presents legal writers with a challenge - one I hope they that they are capable of meeting.

And for those that regard legal prose as nothing more than mechanical boilerplate, consider the following from the introduction to Ephraim London's 1960 two-volume set, The World of Law:

Disraeli said that he was depressed by the law but exalted by literature. If he meant that law and literature are disparates, the statement is without meaning, for the term "literature" is merely a judgment of the quality of writing. Court proceedings, testimony, arguments, pleas and judgments, and the discussion of legal theories...may be read as literature if the expression and thought are of a high order.

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.

While 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?

There'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.

If 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.

What 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."