Hanged versus Hung

Both of these words are the past-tense of the word “hang,” but have different uses.*  The word “hanged” is appropriate when talking about an execution, and the word “hung” is generally appropriate everywhere else.  Thus,

The laundry was hung on the line to dry, and the traitor was hanged in the town square.

*I did a little research to try to figure out why this is true.  According to Grammar Girl, who cites to The New Fowler's Modern English Usage, there were two different words for "hang" in Old English, which led to the two different past-tense forms.

Writing Matters

I recently wrote a short article on motions for summary judgment which the Georgia Bar Journal has published in its April 2013 issue.  The article can be found on the Georgia Bar Journal website.

Many of the points I offer in the article are not only applicable to motions for summary judgment, but are applicable to many other types of documents lawyers draft as well.  It’s always a good idea to “begin with the end in mind” and make sure the “little things” are correct.  As the column name suggests, writing really does matter in the practice of law.       

      

Why Don't More Writers Use Bulleted and Numbered Points?

I recently served as a brief grader for a moot court competition.  One of my fellow graders and I were discussing the briefs, and he commented that the briefs would have been easier to read had the students used bulleted or numbered points in certain sections.

I tend to agree, but I think the reason none of those briefs contained numbered or bulleted points is because students (and lawyers) don’t know its “legal” to use them.  Bulleted and numbered points can be very effective in conveying, for example, the elements of a claim or the support for a writer's position.  Law students learn that briefs should be formal and, I suppose, assume that bulleted and numbered points aren’t formal enough. 

They are wrong.  Bulleted points and numbered points are, in my opinion, both appropriate and effective ways to convey information.  Consider the readability of this passage:

In this case, the Policy is a renewal policy, not a new policy, because:

1. The same insurer, Farm Mutual, provided the prior insurance policies and the Policy;

2. The prior policies and the Policy list the same named insured, Smith Farms; 

3. The prior policies and the Policy have the same base policy number, F04 0295-E24-11;

4. The prior policies and the Policy have identical limits of coverage for bodily injury, medical payments, and UM coverage; and

5. The Policy meets the definition of a "renewal" because it is a "policy superseding at the end of the policy period a policy previously issued and delivered by the same insurer and providing no less than the coverage contained in the superseded policy" and "continues [Farm Mutual’s] obligation to insure [Smith Farms]."

Now consider the readability of this passage:

In this case, the Policy is a renewal policy, not a new policy, because the same insurer, Farm Mutual, provided the prior insurance policies and the Policy.  Furthermore, the prior policies and the Policy list the same named insured, Smith Farms, and have the same base policy number, F04 0295-E24-11.  Additionally, the prior policies and the Policy have identical limits of coverage for bodily injury, medical payments, and UM coverage.  Finally, the Policy meets the definition of a "renewal" because it is a "policy superseding at the end of the policy period a policy previously issued and delivered by the same insurer and providing no less than the coverage contained in the superseded policy" and "continues [Farm Mutual’s] obligation to insure [Smith Farms]."

These passages say the same thing.  However, the first passage more clearly conveys the writer’s support for her position that the policy is a renewal policy.  The good points in the writer’s second passage are lost in the midst of the paragraph.  A reader skimming these passages can ascertain the first writer’s position much more easily.  A word of warning, though: don’t overuse this technique.  Save it for a place in your brief, memo, or letter where it can have the most impact.

And the Award Goes To...

The Green Bag recently released its list of 2012 legal writing honorees.  The complete list can be found at the Green Bag website.

Two of my favorites from this year’s list made the Miscellany subcategory. 

The first is probably the nicest cease and desist letter ever written, courtesy of the folks at Jack Daniels.  A copy can be found here.  I think I’m probably partial to this one because I grew up in Jack Daniels’ back yard and the company always has had a reputation for taking care of its employees and the surrounding community.  To me, this letter epitomizes life in the small, southern town in which I grew up.*  As my grandmother always said, it’s easier to catch flies with honey than vinegar.**

       

The second is the much-discussed "cartoon brief" filed by Bob Kohn in the U.S. v. Apple, Inc. case.  This brief is brilliant, in my opinion, for several reasons—(1) it catches the reader’s attention; (2) it's “written” in an easy-to-read style; and (3) it complies with the court’s 5 page limit for amicus briefs. 

It’s important to point out, however, that Mr. Kohn filed his brief on behalf of himself and, therefore, had license to make it as quirky as he desired.  I can’t imagine either being able to talk a paying client into filing a cartoon brief or being able to explain to my malpractice insurance carrier why I thought a cartoon brief was a good idea.

* Interestingly enough, though, it was written by a lawyer out of Los Angeles.

** For those wondering, the letter worked without further action by Jack Daniels.