Law as a noble profession Forum

[Retiarius]

^ I'm glad someone else picked up on that, A'nold. Law is not inherently noble, therefore it is a zero-sum game? Fail.

Other way around. Zero-sum game, and therefore inherently can't be noble all of the time.

When you have a tort suit, you can't have both sides fighting for a noble cause. They want the exact opposite of each other. And anything noble that one side is fighting for, the other side is trying to counter.

[sundance95]

When you have a tort suit, you can't have both sides fighting for a noble cause.

Even if we assumed for the sake of argument that this is true (which I don't believe it is), not all suits are torts.

[Verity]

Who said the legal system couldn't? Point is, if you're a 0L you should tone down your conclusory opinions. And "jejune" ? Speak English... using legalese in lawl school does not impress professors and your classmates will think you're a douche. Tighten up kid.

So, I'm right, but I should be less confident? Wow.

"Jejune" is English, it's not legalese, we're not in "lawl" school at the moment, and it's the apt word. If we're going to debate usage, your using "conclusory" (underlined by spell-check; this is actually borderline legalese; the dictionary definition of this is actually "conclusive," which is far more common) should be criticized.

I shouldn't have to be schooling you on this.

Did I hit a nerve? As of today, you know nothing about the law. 0. zip. You have no legal experience yet think you know what you're talking about. The funny thing is, I don't know who you are but I could tell that you're a 0L. You're like that guy in my torts class, 1st semester. He thought he knew everything and always raised his hand every class. Yea, well... he shut up after the 1st semester...be prepared...you'll be humbled soon enough.

What I wrote was actually philosophy. I did not write anything that necessitates in-depth knowledge of the technical, historical, or even theoretical aspects of law. The quite correct principle that a system's nobility is gauged only in terms of its framers' and practitioners' intentions doesn't require a law degree; that could ostensibly be LSAT stuff.

And I apologize, I guess, for your collective lack of vocabulary, or disdain for its full use. They really have got you trained at those law schools!

[quakeroats]

Who said the legal system couldn't? Point is, if you're a 0L you should tone down your conclusory opinions. And "jejune" ? Speak English... using legalese in lawl school does not impress professors and your classmates will think you're a douche. Tighten up kid.

So, I'm right, but I should be less confident? Wow.

"Jejune" is English, it's not legalese, we're not in "lawl" school at the moment, and it's the apt word. If we're going to debate usage, your using "conclusory" (underlined by spell-check; this is actually borderline legalese; the dictionary definition of this is actually "conclusive," which is far more common) should be criticized.

I shouldn't have to be schooling you on this.

Did I hit a nerve? As of today, you know nothing about the law. 0. zip. You have no legal experience yet think you know what you're talking about. The funny thing is, I don't know who you are but I could tell that you're a 0L. You're like that guy in my torts class, 1st semester. He thought he knew everything and always raised his hand every class. Yea, well... he shut up after the 1st semester...be prepared...you'll be humbled soon enough.

What I wrote was actually philosophy. I did not write anything that necessitates in-depth knowledge of the technical, historical, or even theoretical aspects of law. The quite correct principle that a system's nobility is gauged only in terms of its framers' and practitioners' intentions doesn't require a law degree; that could ostensibly be LSAT stuff.

And I apologize, I guess, for your collective lack of vocabulary. They really have got you trained at those law schools!

Again, the problem isn't that you're using uncommon words. It's that you're using an uncommon word that conveys nothing a common synonym would not.

Much of what's wrong with your writing is summarized here:
--LinkRemoved--

[Verity]

What I wrote was actually philosophy. I did not write anything that necessitates in-depth knowledge of the technical, historical, or even theoretical aspects of law. The quite correct principle that a system's nobility is gauged only in terms of its framers' and practitioners' intentions doesn't require a law degree; that could ostensibly be LSAT stuff.

And I apologize, I guess, for your collective lack of vocabulary. They really have got you trained at those law schools!

Again, the problem isn't that you're using uncommon words. It's that you're using an uncommon word that conveys nothing a common synonym would not.

Much of what's wrong with your writing is summarized here:
--LinkRemoved--

Thanks for the article, but I'm not writing a damn case brief. This is something I've observed about law students: you don't know when to stop spewing all the stuff you've learned in class, no matter how irrelevant it is. You're really criticizing me for using the word "jejune"? When the hell would that word be needed to convey something (by your estimation) "uncommon"? You could always replace "jejune" with a synonym. Why not ask the dictionary editors to strike it?

Seriously, remember your environment. The legal world is only a small subset of the real world.

[upfish]

Thanks for the article, but I'm not writing a damn case brief. This is something I've observed about law students: you don't know when to stop spewing all the stuff you've learned in class, no matter how irrelevant it is. You're really criticizing me for using the word "jejune"? When the hell would that word be needed to convey something (by your estimation) "uncommon"? You could always replace "jejune" with a synonym. Why not ask the dictionary editors to strike it?

Seriously, remember your environment. The legal world is only a small subset of the real world.

I think probably everyone is criticizing you for it, we're just letting one person deal with it.

I honestly thought that for "jejune" to appear in a post, it had to be one of those 4chan-esque autoreplace things setup to mock people.

Recommend checking this out: http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.htm

[Rooney]

[soaponarope]

What I wrote was actually philosophy. I did not write anything that necessitates in-depth knowledge of the technical, historical, or even theoretical aspects of law. The quite correct principle that a system's nobility is gauged only in terms of its framers' and practitioners' intentions doesn't require a law degree; that could ostensibly be LSAT stuff.

And I apologize, I guess, for your collective lack of vocabulary. They really have got you trained at those law schools!

Again, the problem isn't that you're using uncommon words. It's that you're using an uncommon word that conveys nothing a common synonym would not.

Much of what's wrong with your writing is summarized here:
--LinkRemoved--

Thanks for the article, but I'm not writing a damn case brief. This is something I've observed about law students: you don't know when to stop spewing all the stuff you've learned in class, no matter how irrelevant it is. You're really criticizing me for using the word "jejune"? When the hell would that word be needed to convey something (by your estimation) "uncommon"? You could always replace "jejune" with a synonym. Why not ask the dictionary editors to strike it?

Seriously, remember your environment. The legal world is only a small subset of the real world.

No... we're criticizing you because you're a 0L talking about constitutional law and the law as a noble profession. You have no clue. And philosophy? WTF are you talking about. Just stop. And you're not impressing anyone by using Google to find complex words that no one uses, i.e. "jejune." Really? It's pretty transparent what is going on here... you cannot stand being wrong, you think you know everything, and you're smug. Get over yourself.

[Verity]

Thanks for the article, but I'm not writing a damn case brief. This is something I've observed about law students: you don't know when to stop spewing all the stuff you've learned in class, no matter how irrelevant it is. You're really criticizing me for using the word "jejune"? When the hell would that word be needed to convey something (by your estimation) "uncommon"? You could always replace "jejune" with a synonym. Why not ask the dictionary editors to strike it?

Seriously, remember your environment. The legal world is only a small subset of the real world.

I think probably everyone is criticizing you for it, we're just letting one person deal with it.

I honestly thought that for "jejune" to appear in a post, it had to be one of those 4chan-esque autoreplace things setup to mock people.

Recommend checking this out: http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.htm

Interesting you decided to use this article. Orwell writes:

"As soon as certain topics are raised, the concrete melts into the abstract and no one seems able to think of turns of speech that are not hackneyed: prose consists less and less of words chosen for the sake of their meaning, and more and more of phrases tacked together like the sections of a prefabricated henhouse."

Aside from stale imagery, the other major fault with bad writing, according to Orwell, is lack of precision. "Jejune," the way I used it, is as precise and compact as possible:

1. Naive, simplistic, and superficial.
2. (of ideas or writings) Dry and uninteresting.


Orwell also writes:

"Professor Hogben (2) plays ducks and drakes with a battery which is able to write prescriptions, and, while disapproving of the everyday phrase put up with, is unwilling to look egregious up in the dictionary and see what it means;"

and further:

"A scrupulous writer, in every sentence that he writes...will probably ask himself two more [questions]: 1. Could I put it more shortly? 2. Have I said anything that is avoidably ugly? But you are not obliged to go to all this trouble. You can shirk it by simply throwing your mind open and letting the ready-made phrases come crowding in;"

and even further:

(ii) Never us a long word where a short one will do. "jejune" is not long

(iii) If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out. Can't cut it

(v) Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent. "jejune" is not foreign, scientific, or jargon




This was a major RC fail for you. Orwell would never have disapproved of the use of the word "jejune" in this context, even if it is on an internet forum. Not that it matters; Orwell is heady even by today's standards of legal writing.

Nice job, ace.

[Rooney]

When you have a tort suit, you can't have both sides fighting for a noble cause.

Even if we assumed for the sake of argument that this is true (which I don't believe it is), not all suits are torts.

A DA can be noble, even when defending a guilty person, by making sure the prosecution adheres to the rules (admissible evidence, etc.) Think about mistrials- IMO it's noble to keep the integrity of the judicial process above all else.

I've been to a few mediations for personal injury suits where both sides can be "fighting for a noble cause"- the plaintiff's attorney can be pushing for as large as settlement as possible so that their client's past, present, and future damages are accounted for, and the defense attorney can do a good job by examining any potential defense such as contributory negligence, etc. (also, not giving a large settlement to a bankrupt prior criminal with a lot of pre-existing injuries).

It's a system, and there's a balance. That's how I see it at least. It's good to hear attorneys on both sides speak highly of each other because they do a good job, fairly.

[Verity]

No... we're criticizing you because you're a 0L talking about constitutional law and the law as a noble profession. You have no clue. And philosophy? WTF are you talking about. Just stop. And you're not impressing anyone by using Google to find complex words that no one uses, i.e. "jejune." Really? It's pretty transparent what is going on here... you cannot stand being wrong, you think you know everything, and you're smug. Get over yourself.

Wow, that was dumb. I can't believe you actually think someone must use Google to know and use a not-as-uncommon-as-you-make-it-out-to-be word like "jejune."

And by the way, you don't need to be a 1L to have read the Constitution, and to make judgments about systems and principles of nobility. This does not necessitate legal training. If you don't get that, then....I don't know what to tell you. Besides, you've already implied that I was right on this score; so your point is that even if what I say is true, I should keep it to myself in order to free up space for your nonsensical sentiments? Gotta love the ad hominem, too.

And smug? Because I use a word you don't know? Maybe if I used it, and someone said "what's jejune mean?" and I replied "haha, you're an idiot," then that would be smug. You're not automatically smug for using certain borderline-uncommon words. I can't control what words you know. I don't know what words you know. I shouldn't have to care what words you know. Maybe you've never heard the word "commonplace," or "severe," or diffident," or "conclusory," etc. I can't cater to your personal vocabulary. You're an adult, and you're in graduate school. You're supposed to be educated. Use the dictionary.

[quakeroats]

What I wrote was actually philosophy. I did not write anything that necessitates in-depth knowledge of the technical, historical, or even theoretical aspects of law. The quite correct principle that a system's nobility is gauged only in terms of its framers' and practitioners' intentions doesn't require a law degree; that could ostensibly be LSAT stuff.

And I apologize, I guess, for your collective lack of vocabulary. They really have got you trained at those law schools!

Again, the problem isn't that you're using uncommon words. It's that you're using an uncommon word that conveys nothing a common synonym would not.

Much of what's wrong with your writing is summarized here:
--LinkRemoved--

Thanks for the article, but I'm not writing a damn case brief. This is something I've observed about law students: you don't know when to stop spewing all the stuff you've learned in class, no matter how irrelevant it is. You're really criticizing me for using the word "jejune"? When the hell would that word be needed to convey something (by your estimation) "uncommon"? You could always replace "jejune" with a synonym. Why not ask the dictionary editors to strike it?

Seriously, remember your environment. The legal world is only a small subset of the real world.

First, words aren't stricken when they fall into disuse. Second, while the piece I sent is geared toward legal briefs--case briefs are something different--the advice is generally applicable. The author's position is essentially the same as Garner's Modern American Usage and the Chicago Manual. When should you use "jejune?" Probably never, but if ever then when it conveys something more than its synonyms (naive, simplistic, superficial, etc.). English has over 600,000 words, well beyond what any person can handle. You can construct entire paragraphs that are incomprehensible without a dictionary, but you shouldn't because that would impair comprehension. A general rule of writing well is to use uncommon words only when they serve a purpose. I can't identify any purpose in choosing jejune other than to confuse or sound pompous.

In addition to Garner and Chicago, read this: http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/D ... tense.html

[Verity]

What I wrote was actually philosophy. I did not write anything that necessitates in-depth knowledge of the technical, historical, or even theoretical aspects of law. The quite correct principle that a system's nobility is gauged only in terms of its framers' and practitioners' intentions doesn't require a law degree; that could ostensibly be LSAT stuff.

And I apologize, I guess, for your collective lack of vocabulary. They really have got you trained at those law schools!

Again, the problem isn't that you're using uncommon words. It's that you're using an uncommon word that conveys nothing a common synonym would not.

Much of what's wrong with your writing is summarized here:
--LinkRemoved--

Thanks for the article, but I'm not writing a damn case brief. This is something I've observed about law students: you don't know when to stop spewing all the stuff you've learned in class, no matter how irrelevant it is. You're really criticizing me for using the word "jejune"? When the hell would that word be needed to convey something (by your estimation) "uncommon"? You could always replace "jejune" with a synonym. Why not ask the dictionary editors to strike it?

Seriously, remember your environment. The legal world is only a small subset of the real world.

First, words aren't stricken when they fall into disuse. Second, while the piece I sent is geared toward legal briefs--case briefs are something different--the advice is generally applicable. The author's position is essentially the same as Garner's Modern American Usage and the Chicago Manual. When should you use "jejune?" Probably never, but if ever then when it conveys something more than its synonyms (naive, simplistic, superficial, etc.). English has over 600,000 words, well beyond what any person can handle. You can construct entire paragraphs that are incomprehensible without a dictionary, but you shouldn't because that would impair comprehension. A general rule of writing well is to use uncommon words only when they serve a purpose. I can't identify any purpose in choosing jejune other than to confuse or sound pompous.

In addition to Garner and Chicago, read this: http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/D ... tense.html

It's not in disuse; not a single dictionary labels it an archaism, or as obsolete, and I see it written from time to time in contemporary periodicals. The point is that I'm not going to stop using words that I know and have been using for years just because people like you refuse, almost to moronic lengths, to learn some more words (especially, and only, when its use is appropriate). Your "general rule" is not mine.

[quakeroats]

Interesting you decided to use this article. Orwell writes:

"As soon as certain topics are raised, the concrete melts into the abstract and no one seems able to think of turns of speech that are not hackneyed: prose consists less and less of words chosen for the sake of their meaning, and more and more of phrases tacked together like the sections of a prefabricated henhouse."

See my prior post.

Aside from stale imagery, the other major fault with bad writing, according to Orwell, is lack of precision. "Jejune," the way I used it, is as precise and compact as possible:

1. Naive, simplistic, and superficial.
2. (of ideas or writings) Dry and uninteresting.

Do you know what would be more compact and precise than jejune? Naive, simplistic, superficial, or uninteresting

Orwell also writes:

"Professor Hogben (2) plays ducks and drakes with a battery which is able to write prescriptions, and, while disapproving of the everyday phrase put up with, is unwilling to look egregious up in the dictionary and see what it means;"

I don't have the context, but this appears to be about avoiding terminal prepositions. Orwell is right that there is no reason to avoid ending a sentence with a preposition, but so what?

[Rooney]

--ImageRemoved--

[Verity]

Interesting you decided to use this article. Orwell writes:

"As soon as certain topics are raised, the concrete melts into the abstract and no one seems able to think of turns of speech that are not hackneyed: prose consists less and less of words chosen for the sake of their meaning, and more and more of phrases tacked together like the sections of a prefabricated henhouse."

See my prior post.

I read it, and it's inapplicable. This happens to be the opposite case: I'm being attacked for using a much more precise single word, just because it is slightly uncommon.

Aside from stale imagery, the other major fault with bad writing, according to Orwell, is lack of precision. "Jejune," the way I used it, is as precise and compact as possible:

1. Naive, simplistic, and superficial.
2. (of ideas or writings) Dry and uninteresting.

Do you know what would be more compact and precise than jejune? Naive, simplistic, superficial, or uninteresting

And all of those sentiments are elegantly compacted into "jejune." This is where you fail to appreciate vocabulary: the subtle shadings and associations ascribed to words enrich sentences. Without different but similar or related words, we talk in imprecise generalizations.

Orwell also writes:

"Professor Hogben (2) plays ducks and drakes with a battery which is able to write prescriptions, and, while disapproving of the everyday phrase put up with, is unwilling to look egregious up in the dictionary and see what it means;"

I don't have the context, but this appears to be about avoiding terminal prepositions. Orwell is right that there is no reason to avoid ending a sentence with a preposition, but so what?

He's obviously not opposed to imbeciles looking up words when they don't know what they mean.

[soaponarope]

No... we're criticizing you because you're a 0L talking about constitutional law and the law as a noble profession. You have no clue. And philosophy? WTF are you talking about. Just stop. And you're not impressing anyone by using Google to find complex words that no one uses, i.e. "jejune." Really? It's pretty transparent what is going on here... you cannot stand being wrong, you think you know everything, and you're smug. Get over yourself.

Wow, that was dumb. I can't believe you actually think someone must use Google to know and use a not-as-uncommon-as-you-make-it-out-to-be word like "jejune."

And by the way, you don't need to be a 1L to have read the Constitution, and to make judgments about systems and principles of nobility. This does not necessitate legal training. If you don't get that, then....I don't know what to tell you. Besides, you've already implied that I was right on this score; so your point is that even if what I say is true, I should keep it to myself in order to free up space for your nonsensical sentiments? Gotta love the ad hominem, too.

And smug? Because I use a word you don't know? Maybe if I used it, and someone said "what's jejune mean?" and I replied "haha, you're an idiot," then that would be smug. You're not automatically smug for using certain borderline-uncommon words. I can't control what words you know. I don't know what words you know. I shouldn't have to care what words you know. Maybe you've never heard the word "commonplace," or "severe," or diffident," or "conclusory," etc. I can't cater to your personal vocabulary. You're an adult, and you're in graduate school. You're supposed to be educated. Use the dictionary.

Read your other post, and see underlined for examples of what I mean by smug. And conclusory is a common term used in law school and law school forums... "jejune" is not. Get over it. Finally, you're not very smart. It's more than likely in your best interest to forgo law school and consider another profession.

[quakeroats]

It's not in disuse; not a single dictionary labels it an archaism, and I see it written from time to time in contemporary periodicals. The point is that I'm not going to stop using words that I know and have been using for years just because people like you refuse, almost to moronic lengths, to learn some more words (especially, and only, when its use is appropriate). Your "general rule" is not mine.

Feel free to ignore our advice. I wish you much success reconnoitering auxiliary contemporary periodicals at your métier circulated broadsheet on the thoroughfare.

[Verity]

It's not in disuse; not a single dictionary labels it an archaism, and I see it written from time to time in contemporary periodicals. The point is that I'm not going to stop using words that I know and have been using for years just because people like you refuse, almost to moronic lengths, to learn some more words (especially, and only, when its use is appropriate). Your "general rule" is not mine.

Feel free to ignore our advice. I wish you much success reconnoitering auxiliary contemporary periodicals in your métier circulated broadsheet on the thoroughfare.

That would've been slightly amusing if you didn't use those words so inaptly. Incomparable.

[Verity]

Read your other post, and see underlined for examples of what I mean by smug. And conclusory is a common term used in law school and law school forums... "jejune" is not. Get over it. Finally, you're not very smart. It's more than likely in your best interest to forgo law school and consider another profession.

Wow. This has jejune written all over it.

You're actually the smug one for automatically rejecting any argument remotely related to law, just because of its source. You didn't even challenge the substance of what I said! This is textbook smugness. I had to go through pages of your nonsense to reach this point.

[Borhas]

what the fuck is a noble profession?

[soaponarope]

Read your other post, and see underlined for examples of what I mean by smug. And conclusory is a common term used in law school and law school forums... "jejune" is not. Get over it. Finally, you're not very smart. It's more than likely in your best interest to forgo law school and consider another profession.

Wow. This has jejune written all over it.

You're actually the smug one for automatically rejecting any argument remotely related to law, just because of its source. You didn't even challenge the substance of what I said! This is textbook smugness. I had to go through pages of your nonsense to reach this point.

No. My original comment to you was "this has 0L written all over it" --- my evidence was your "conclusory" statements that were by and large incorrect statements. Moreover, I was correct...you are a 0L.

As for the challenging the substance of what you said would be a waste of time. ConLaw is complex. Can you sustain a conversation about the political question doctrine, substantive/procedural due process, Marbury v. Madison-judicial review, or if there is indeed an ascertainable "framers intent." How should you determine the framers intent? History and tradition? (If so, then who's history and tradition?) What about an emerging awareness? Surely... blacks, homosexuals, or persons with immutable traits that are part of an inherent suspect class are not protected by the "framers intent." Or how about we discuss the 9th amendment and the penumbra of fundamental rights such as the right to privacy, the right to get married, the right to travel, the right to vote, the right to procreate, etc.. Why did the framers incorporate the 9th amendment in the bill of rights?

Or how about we discuss what our legal system is really about, i.e. an adversarial system. Unlike the Courts in England, America has an adversarial system. That is, we do not seek truth in American Courts. The defense attorney has a legal duty to defend his client vigorously and get the best outcome for his client within the law and ethical standards set forth by the ABA. There is attorney-client confidentiality for a reason.

That aside, what you wrote was an overly simplistic, conclusory statement that was for the most part wrong. You can't handle being wrong and you try to cover by firing back with legal jargon that makes you look like a douche. I'll say it once more... just stop.

[BackToTheOldHouse]

You guys suck.

[Patriot1208]

Verity, do you really not understand how fucking douchy you look? It's like I turned to a picture of someone with aspergers and saw you. People don't hate vocabulary, they hate people who look like they are trying to impress with their vocabulary. Seriously, if you want to be successful you need to learn how to interact with people. And seemingly you have gone through life without that skill.

[Verity]

As for the challenging the substance of what you said would be a waste of time. ConLaw is complex. Can you sustain a conversation about the political question doctrine, substantive/procedural due process, Marbury v. Madison-judicial review, or if there is indeed an ascertainable "framers intent." How should you determine the framers intent? History and tradition? (If so, then who's history and tradition?) What about an emerging awareness? Surely... blacks, homosexuals, or persons with immutable traits that are part of an inherent suspect class are not protected by the "framers intent." Or how about we discuss the 9th amendment and the penumbra of fundamental rights such as the right to privacy, the right to get married, the right to travel, the right to vote, the right to procreate, etc.. Why did the framers incorporate the 9th amendment in the bill of rights?

This is actually what I wrote: "The framers of the Constitution attempted to be fair, at least abstractly, and in that sense they were mildly noble. Subsequently, lawmakers have not exactly been noble in unison. Nobility in practice is what counts, though. The law used a certain way can produce highly unfair and ignoble outcomes."

Like it or not, there are plenty of non-lawyers that are able to discuss this. Your invoking "political question doctrine, substantive/procedural due process, Marbury v. Madison-judicial review" is irrelevant (since most of this was constantly developed for centuries after the framers died); and as to "ascertainable framers' intent," it's obvious you don't need a law degree to discuss this. There is overwhelming historical evidence supporting the notion that the framers did have noble intentions; literally thousands of pages. I could pick one, or two, or ten at random and post them here; but there's no point, because you want to take a simple, correct contention and blow it up into a totally different field of discourse. Why? Because law school has super-satiated you with theory, and you want to burst it all out. Even when it's inappropriate and wrongheaded.

Or how about we discuss what our legal system is really about, i.e. an adversarial system. Unlike the Courts in England, America has an adversarial system. That is, we do not seek truth in American Courts. The defense attorney has a legal duty to defend his client vigorously and get the best outcome for his client within the law and ethical standards set forth by the ABA. There is attorney-client confidentiality for a reason.

This is a common debate in law, i.e. which of these two systems is has more advantages and disadvantages. It's been discussed at length not only in recent history, but during the framing of the Constitution (the framers were well-acquainted of the English legal system). The writings of various framers express their intentions to create the most fair and just society possible, and in that sense I believe their intentions were largely noble (even if you think they might be incorrect).

You can't handle being wrong and you try to cover by firing back with legal jargon that makes you look like a douche. I'll say it once more... just stop.

Wow. Okay, for the last time, I'm not using legal jargon: you are. I haven't "fired back" with anything really until now, since you've evaded a substantive discussion.